Jump to content

As Bad Ideas Go, This Is A Doozy - Print A Weapon


Xann
 Share

Recommended Posts

Being clearings in the woods.

 

It was going to happen anyway, but who's going to be using this information?

 

Wholesome citizens of sound mind, who could get a gun license in the US anyway?

 

Or backstreet armouries, to convert deactivated 'replica' weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being clearings in the woods.

 

It was going to happen anyway, but who's going to be using this information?

 

Wholesome citizens of sound mind, who could get a gun license in the US anyway?

 

Or backstreet armouries, to convert deactivated 'replica' weapons.

Being clearings in the woods isn't against the law.

However the right to impart and receive information is a fundamental right that all people have.

It's not illegal to tell someone how to do something, you can find out how to do pretty much anything you want easily enough anyway, from picking a lock to making a nuclear bomb, the information on how to do it is, and should always be, available to anyone.

I'd argue that you should be locked up before these "clearings in the woods".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally get where you're coming from, on all your points :)

You look at the internet, right? Do you think the world is a sane and happy place?

There's a lot of weird and wonderful information out there, but that's what it is, information.

3d printers are a game changer - they're going to enable some of that information to become reality without massive resources -

The guns were always going to be a problem, but what are the next gen of concealed explosives going to look like?

There's quite a lot of controlled chemical lab equipment too, the stuff shouldn't be in the hands of narcotic labs and potential mass poisoners.

 

My problem with the clearings in the woods is that they think they're being freedom fighters, but info they've made available is much more likely to create grieving families than a better America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's much cheaper to just buy a weapon on the black market, that isn't plastic and probably quite easy in some areas of the world.  

 

For sure, and the printers aren't cheap - the guy that made the transformer 7.2 made his own!

 

It's early days for 3d printing, but as technology does, it'll get cheaper and easier.

 

This isn't a problem now, but it's serious and it's coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You look at the internet, right? Do you think the world is a sane and happy place?

For the most part it is.

The internet just gives you greater access to the nutjobs out there. It gives them a forum where they otherwise might not have had one before.

There's a lot of weird and wonderful information out there, but that's what it is, information.

3d printers are a game changer - they're going to enable some of that information to become reality without massive resources -

The guns were always going to be a problem, but what are the next gen of concealed explosives going to look like?

There's quite a lot of controlled chemical lab equipment too, the stuff shouldn't be in the hands of narcotic labs and potential mass poisoners.

I think you're seriously over estimating the ability of 3d printers.

Unless they get down to the molecular level then we're not exactly going to be able to print the chemicals needed for explosives. You're still going to need access to the raw materials. Being able to print a centrifuge isn't going to help you enrich uranium, especially as your centrifuge will be made out of the weakest plastic going and fracture into a million pieces before it gets up to speed.

My problem with the clearings in the woods is that they think they're being freedom fighters, but info they've made available is much more likely to create grieving families than a better America.

They are being freedom fighters, they're fighting for the free flow of information that should be taken for granted. Instead people want to limit what we have access to, whilst enjoying unlimited access to everything themselves.

Aaron Swartz killed himself after being hounded by the authorities for years and under the treat of 35 years in prison for doing nothing more than wanting to facilitate the free flow of information and provide access to scientific journals that tax payers money had funded the research for for free.

Tell me, how many years have the people who bought down the banks faced? Who in the libor fixing scandal is even going to stand trial? Yet for the crime of wanting people to have free access to information someone is driven to suicide by the treat of life in prison and 7 figure fines.

One of the founding principles of the US was that any right not specifically given to government in the constitution should exist with the people by default. These days it seems to be the opposite, you can only do what the government says you can (and this isn't limited to the US, it's the same here in the UK). We've allowed ourselves to become submissive to the people that are meant to represent us, and handing away more and more of our rights under the paranoid banner of terrorism or violent crime is not what people should be doing. Instead we should be taking back more of our rights, standing up and saying "no, you work for us" and taking government back out from under the wing of big business and back to what it should be, a govnerment of the people, by the people, for the people.

If it takes people standing up for their second amendment rights to do that, then that's fine with me.

Where do we draw the line? Do we prevent people being able to print sharp objects? Maybe 3d printers should have firmware that rounds over all edges to make sure no one can use them to create a knife? Maybe we should pre-emptively charge anyone in possession of a 3d printer with going equipped to steal as they can use it to print out a set of lock picks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we draw the line at guns?

 

That seems sensible to me.

Except it's already illegal to 3d print a gun in the UK.

The US law on manufacturing a firearm are more complex, but iirc for the most part it's fine for personal use as long as it's not fully auto.

So why exactly do we have to do anything at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I nearly ordered a 3d printer a few weeks ago, but I decided to wait for another generation.

 

You can't be convicted for "going equipped" in the UK for owning lock picks, let alone the tools to create them. A lock pick is a bent piece of metal or plastic. You'd need to have them outdoors while carrying a bag with "swag" written on the side.

 

There are a variety of "raw" products available with varying properties. Some are flexible, some are brittle. You use one appropriate for what you are making. A ammunition clip good for 600 usage cycles is hardly fragile. But you are correct; they will never be able to print explosives for ammunition, not that explosives are particularly hard to make.

 

If you want a worry, think about people printing plastic crossbows. They don't need explosives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part it is.

There's enough murderous, organised and well funded operations hell bent on mayhem as it stands.

As the gap between rich and poor grows and living standards drop due to scarcity of resources, the numbers of disaffected will rise.

Unless they get down to the molecular level then we're not exactly going to be able to print the chemicals needed for explosives. You're still going to need access to the raw materials. Being able to print a centrifuge isn't going to help you enrich uranium, especially as your centrifuge will be made out of the weakest plastic going and fracture into a million pieces before it gets up to speed.

 I'm not talking about printing explosives at molecular level, or making nuclear weapons. I'm talking about automating basic chemical lab apparatus and processes.

 

Personally I think the proliferation of firearms is a bad thing.

 

You can see the next argument. "Everyone's got guns now, we have to keep them to protect ourselves." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ammunition clip good for 600 usage cycles is hardly fragile.

It's not exactly strong either.

There's no need for much strength in the magazine, it's just a solid block. It doesn't have to deal with extreme changes in pressure or temperature, it's not going to get hot like a barrel would, there's not going to be any expanding gases in it.

The sorts of "restricted lab equipment" Xann is talking about has extremely tight tolerance levels on manufacture, and extremely high tolerances on things like operating pressure and temperature. Not the sort of thing you can easily replicate at home with the sort of 3D printer that's likely to be on the market any time in the future.

If you want a worry, think about people printing plastic crossbows. They don't need explosives.

Slow to load, crap to aim. I wouldn't say crossbows are anywhere near as much of a thread as a decent plastic blade would be. Especially due to the ease of concealment and the fact the entire country is set up to detect knives with metal detectors.

Prison shankings have long taught is sharpened plastics are more than sufficient to do lethal damage.

But the point again is we already have laws against the ownership of things like these, we don't need laws covering the distribution of information on how to make them. Thought crimes aren't illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep it that way. Leave the jails for people that actually do something to break the law, not just have the information on how to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part it is.

There's enough murderous, organised and well funded operations hell bent on mayhem as it stands.

As the gap between rich and poor grows and living standards drop due to scarcity of resources, the numbers of disaffected will rise.

And somehow these "disaffected" poor people are going to be able to spend a fortune on a 3d printer, rather than just going down the same route they go down now to get a firearm?

I don't think so somehow.

Unless they get down to the molecular level then we're not exactly going to be able to print the chemicals needed for explosives. You're still going to need access to the raw materials. Being able to print a centrifuge isn't going to help you enrich uranium, especially as your centrifuge will be made out of the weakest plastic going and fracture into a million pieces before it gets up to speed.

 I'm not talking about printing explosives at molecular level, or making nuclear weapons. I'm talking about automating basic chemical lab apparatus and processes.

 

Personally I think the proliferation of firearms is a bad thing.

 

You can see the next argument. "Everyone's got guns now, we have to keep them to protect ourselves."

Everyone isn't going to have guns, it's still illegal to manufacture or own a gun in the UK. That's not going to change if someone can print off a trigger assembly in the UK. They'd STILL be breaking the law.

We don't need new laws when the ones we have are sufficient to keep people safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And somehow these "disaffected" poor people are going to be able to spend a fortune on a 3d printer, rather than just going down the same route they go down now to get a firearm?

I don't think so somehow..

Like I said above, this isn't a problem yet, but we're getting there

It's the well funded organisations that pay for the equipment, it's the disaffected that blow themselves up.

 

 They'd STILL be breaking the law.

It's not the people that worry about breaking the law that are the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

But the point again is we already have laws against the ownership of things like these, we don't need laws covering the distribution of information on how to make them. Thought crimes aren't illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep it that way. Leave the jails for people that actually do something to break the law, not just have the information on how to.

I agree with that completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

No bigger threat to the powers that be than a free and open internet. Which is why it should be kept as such, warts and all.

 

Slightly more on topic, 3D printers look nifty but are they restricted to plastic?

I'm not sure if they are commercially, but the technology isn't.

 

We use them at JLR for rapid prototyping and some of the stuff which I'm sure I'm not allowed to tell you about is incredibly impressive and I would imagine that's the future of spare parts in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point again is we already have laws against the ownership of things like these, we don't need laws covering the distribution of information on how to make them. Thought crimes aren't illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep it that way. Leave the jails for people that actually do something to break the law, not just have the information on how to.

I agree with that completely.

No bigger threat to the powers that be than a free and open internet. Which is why it should be kept as such, warts and all.

 

All for freedom of information.

 

Before the internet there was...2eanp1c.jpg.

 

As it says, a book catalogue for the extremes of information in print.

It's very strange, very wonderful and very disturbing.

Amongst the art and philosophy you'll find books written by and for paedophiles, and books written by survivalists and military technicians on how to stop tanks or build flame throwers. I've always had a copy, love it, but some of the stuff is twisted and dangerous. Though I'm glad that if I really needed flame thrower I could make one, it doesn't sit easy that soon it'll be much, much easier to make such lethal low tech devices on not that much more than a whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â