Of 1000 Americans Polled, Most Would Ban Home Printing of Guns 578
An anonymous reader writes "In results that may signal some discomfort with the enormous DIY promise of 3D printing and similar home-manufacturing technologies, a new Reason-Rupe poll finds that an otherwise gun control-weary American public thinks owners of 3D printers ought not be allowed to make their own guns or gun parts. Of course, implementing such a restrictive policy might be tad more difficult than measuring popular preferences." This poll is of only 1000 people, though; your mileage may vary.
Re:Machine shop, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturing your own guns is not illegal in the US, as long as you don't sell it nor produce certain forbidden pieces/materials.
It doesn't take much to build a gun... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Machine shop, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
However, gun parts can vary wildly. And, a part for a gun could conceivably be used as a part for a completely different, legal machine. I don't see a practical means of programming such a limitation.
Re:Personal Responsibility? (Score:3, Informative)
OK. So we have a world where people can sneak around with .22 caliber one shot pistols that are not visible to metal detectors. I mean, everyone will want one, no? This changes the entire security dynamic, no?
Lions and tigers and bears. Oh. My.
Plastic gun printing changes absolutely nothing. The current stamping and seizing about this is simply panem et circenses.
Enjoy, citizen.
Re:Machine shop, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots [eff.org]
http://petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-edit-photos-of-money-in-photoshop/ [petapixel.com]
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, guns are pretty much banned in Chicago, New York City, etc. And yet, dozens of shootings every day....
This image has a nice take on it... apparently cold weather causes violence.
http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/houston-chicago-guns-weather.jpg?w=500&h=500 [wordpress.com]
Re:Personal Responsibility? (Score:3, Informative)
Yet another Brit puts his two pence in. Guess what? You guys are the reason we have the Second Amendment.
Do you mean because our second amendment is derived from their own bill of rights? Most people forget that this country was largely made up of Englishmen, and many of our ideas are based on ones that existed already, and this is one of them. The right to bear arms was considered a natural right, not even a written law until after a King had attempted to disarm his subjects. And now, even though the right to bear arms is also made clear in their bill of rights, firearms are still heavily regulated in England without infringing on peoples' rights. How is this possible? Easy, they understand the right to bear arms doesn't mean anyone and everyone should be allowed to own assault weapons. There are guns in England, despite what many Americans seem to think, they're just regulated. And it would make sense for us to follow suit, given that the main argument against gun control is really just a reference to England's own laws.
Re:Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Letting people have guns without being part of a well-trained militia is also not on the things the Federal Government can do, but here we are.
Words change meaning over time. "Well regulated" means "well armed, provisioned", not well-trained, and "militia" means "ordinary citizens acting as makeshift military", not a formal military unit. And technically, "letting people do X" is not an action; the federal government has its roles rigidly defined, and "restricting citizens from owning armaments" is not one of those roles.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Today, sure. But tomorrow?
The current "zip gun" design is simply a proof of concept, proving that you can in fact CTRL+P a working, untraceable, undetectable firearm.
It's not dissimilar to the 3d printed large capacity magazines created before it. Although they're already much more practical: A 30 round clip that's cheap/easy enough to simply be thrown away after 1 use doesn't need to reliably fire more then 30 rounds to be fully effective.
The point however, is that it's a zip-gun today...it's a fully working AR-15 or Glock 17 tomorrow, or even a full on mini-gun, or printed caseless ammo. And "tomorrow" isn't a euphemism for "some day far in the future, maybe, but probably not". No, "tomorrow" really is tomorrow. Between advancements in 3D printer tech, advancements in materials, advancements in software, and a whole bunch of people suddenly becoming interested in and buying their own 3D printers...we'll be far, far past "zip-gun" this time next year.
Wake the fuck up. This really does change everything. This bell cannot be unrung. No matter where you sit politically on issues of guns, this is the new reality and any regulations you care to write can't pretend reality is something else if you want them to have any real effect.
Want to ban 30 round clips so bad guys can't fire so many rounds at once as they're marching through an elementrary school? Or ban assault weapons? Or ban silencers? Or require background checks?
Noble intentions, but how's that going to be effective when 3D printers are as common place and easy to use as ink jet photo printers are today?
Re: Well... (Score:5, Informative)
NRA is a marketing arm of gun manufacturers.
Except for the fact that the NRA gets very little money from gun manufacturers. Where they get their money from is mostly from advertising revenues from firearms companies, donations to it's Ring of Freedom corporate sponsors program from firearms companies, donations to its 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations (again largely from firearms companies. The membership dues cover less than half of their budget, and even some of those are paid for by firearms companies: Taurus buys a membership for each customer.
FTFY.