3D Printed Gun Maker Cody Wilson Defends Open Source Freedom

Lucas123 (935744) writes "Cody Wilson, the 26-year-old former law school student who published plans for printing 3D guns online, disputed claims by universities and government agencies that his thermoplastic gun design is unsafe. Wilson claims the agencies that tested the guns did not build them to spec. In a Q&A with Computerworld, he also addressed why he's continuing to press regulatory agencies to allow him to offer the plans again for upload after being ordered to take them down, saying it's less about the Second Amendment and more about the implications of open source and the digital age. "If you want to talk about rights, what does it mean to respect a civil liberty or civil right? Well, it means you understand there are social costs in having that right; that's why it deserves protection in the first place," he said. Wilson is also planning to release other gun-related project, though not necessarily a CAD design."

Re:Who Cares?

[MBGMorden]

As an aside: what's with Americans and their guns? Sheesh, people, grow up. You don't need a plastic-or-metal penis to be a real man

Your mistake is that thinking guns have anything to do with a penis or being a "real man". Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?

People like guns because they happen to like guns. Some people like golf, basketball, big trucks, or a whole host of other stuff without worrying about their mainhood.

I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.

Re:What if the costs are too great?

[Albanach]

Seriously? For the most part, someone who is not a convicted felon or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness can buy a gun in a gun shop. The others can (illegally, but apparently with some ease) buy a gun at a gun fair. [thirdway.org]

Here's an NRA guide by state [nraila.org]

Re:Irresponsible

[RevDisk]

Not really. Go ahead and have an aneurysm when you read this.

It's legal to post 3D print files of firearms. That's fully legal and permitted under the First and Second Amendments.

It's illegal to export them internationally without State Department permission, due to The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Constitution grants the US government nearly unlimited control of the borders of the United States, and that include limits on goods going in or out of the country.

Source: I did export control in the aerospace industry. Plenty of 100% fully legal domestic stuff is illegal to send internationally without a permit. Fun example? L3 FLIR cameras made in Canada are illegal to transport back into Canada. Or notch a tailpipe to fit in a HMMWV, it becomes a defense article.

Re: Irresponsible

[gfxguy]

Crime continues to rise and you think America is getting better? Why not address the violence culture instead of their tools? Oh, that's right... It's because you feel it infringes on your rights to live in a culture who makes sport and entertainment of violence.

FBI Statistical data disagrees with you (FBI Violent Crime Table [goo.gl]). I realize the mainstream media has brainwashed a large number of people out there to believe the sky is falling on this issue, but it's really not.

Tyranny

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment was written by people who had just violently expelled a tyrannical government. The only plausible explanation is that they intended for the "militia", meaning all able bodied males, to be able to violently expel the government they were creating when it turned tyrannical.

Re:Disagree.

[gfxguy]

Now you're just being disingenuous... I never said that's what the revolution was about, I said owning firearms is part of the reason we have the U.S. and the bill of rights to begin with. IOW, we wouldn't have won without them. And the founders of this country, noting that that was the case, codified the right, not just own, but to bear arms, in the bill of rights.

Re:Disagree.

[pr0fessor]

All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

That may very well be true but you have to step back and look at the entire picture. It doesn't even make the top 10 {15 if you look at the pdf} leading causes of death and is ranked below Influenza and Pneumonia things we rarely even think twice about.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat... [cdc.gov]

It's a publicity stunt

[Animats]

This is just someone who wants attention. Guns with plastic barrels are junk, worse even than low-end Saturday Night Specials. You can get a cheap gun for under $100 [gunbroker.com] in the US. (Yes, the Raven is a crappy gun, but it's still better than anything made on an extruder-type 3D printer.)

This is not the cutting edge of weapons design. Guns with aimbots. [tracking-point.com] are the cutting edge. Right now, they're expensive, around $10K, but they will get cheaper.

Re:Disagree.

[RevDisk]

Oddly, I have never heard a combat vet agreeing with that assessment. Never underestimate a lot of angry civilians with often homemade or virtually antique weapons. While it may (may, not certain) be possible to conquer such folks, it gets awfully expensive. Vietnam and Afghanistan are hardy examples. Saw examples of it in the Balkans. Hell, buddy of mine that spent time in Rwanda told me about mass combat with cheap PRC machetes.

It's nearly cliche to say "Weapons don't win wars, people do". But there is more than a bit of truth in it. If weapons solely determined wars, history would be a very different place. Hell, if that was the case, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine would not be stomping the ever lovin' hell out of the Ukrainian forces. That's actually a pretty good example of cheap, simple hand weapons taking down tanks and helicopter gunships.