Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
#722
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I wasn't really suggesting anything like this. I was really trying to address whether releasing these plans was an ethical decision not its legality or future legality. I kind of got off-topic myself.
I guess my main point is should someone really widely distribute plans for a gun that only has practical purpose for assassinations?
It is not like an enthusiast is going to print one of these and take it to the range more than once. It holds one bullet and probably has terrible accuracy from anything over 5 feet.
Again I am not saying people should not be able to own these now that the plans are available. I am questioning the decision of releasing the plans in the first place. What possible good could stem from this decision. It is not like you have released plans that could be used to effectively arm citizen's in the event that the government confiscates all existing guns and shuts down manufacturers. It is a one shot pistol.
I guess my main point is should someone really widely distribute plans for a gun that only has practical purpose for assassinations?
It is not like an enthusiast is going to print one of these and take it to the range more than once. It holds one bullet and probably has terrible accuracy from anything over 5 feet.
Again I am not saying people should not be able to own these now that the plans are available. I am questioning the decision of releasing the plans in the first place. What possible good could stem from this decision. It is not like you have released plans that could be used to effectively arm citizen's in the event that the government confiscates all existing guns and shuts down manufacturers. It is a one shot pistol.
Maybe the existence of plastic assassination guns will make a few politicians think twice about selling out their constituents.
#725
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Research used to weaponize nuclear technology would be a perfect example of a situation where it may have been better to not share your knowledge. However, it is never a black and white decision because you would also have to factor in how many deaths would have resulted without the use of nukes or the consequences if we had not developed the technology and Germany had gotten to it first.
#728
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
![Lightbulb](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon3.gif)
Why would they bother with a single-use plastic gun?
The same can be said of a disgruntled divorcee who wants to assassinate their ex-spouse or judge in a courtroom. Print two: one for murder and one for suicide.
Edit: Or a middle class kid who doesn't know any criminals from which to buy an illegal firearm but does have access to a 3D printer and torrents.
I think Ryan_G makes very valid points. AGAIN with the disclaimer that "I am not sure it's a good idea" does NOT equal "I think it's a bad idea."
#729
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I am having a hard time trying to imagine a fully plastic printed gun with a plastic firing pin and plastic chamber.
However I do understand the points made with one time use firearms, however I agree with a different perspective:
I believe the fight to print guns is just expression of freedom, but the quality of firearm it produces as of right now is poor at best; thus I feel there are going to be a spike in self inflicted injuries of printed guns grenading in the faces and hands of novice builders. I worry more for youth; idiot rich kids that have access to 3D printers in their parental proximity trying to fabricate a firearm and inevitably causing themself deathly harm.
I think its a bad idea just on the basis of safety.
Also, the feeling is also mixed, because I believe you can supplement firearms with printed furniture, because in reality that's what I would do. I feel the price of a ton of furniture and accessories is way to damn high for what they really are, and I believe printing will drive those prices down.
There are tons of idiots out there that believe you can just click print on a picture and it will print the whole gun built as an entirety, which isnt true. As of now there are still a ton of metallic bits that are amost necessary in the function of a firearm: Spring, firing pin, and chamber.
However I do understand the points made with one time use firearms, however I agree with a different perspective:
I believe the fight to print guns is just expression of freedom, but the quality of firearm it produces as of right now is poor at best; thus I feel there are going to be a spike in self inflicted injuries of printed guns grenading in the faces and hands of novice builders. I worry more for youth; idiot rich kids that have access to 3D printers in their parental proximity trying to fabricate a firearm and inevitably causing themself deathly harm.
I think its a bad idea just on the basis of safety.
Also, the feeling is also mixed, because I believe you can supplement firearms with printed furniture, because in reality that's what I would do. I feel the price of a ton of furniture and accessories is way to damn high for what they really are, and I believe printing will drive those prices down.
There are tons of idiots out there that believe you can just click print on a picture and it will print the whole gun built as an entirety, which isnt true. As of now there are still a ton of metallic bits that are amost necessary in the function of a firearm: Spring, firing pin, and chamber.
#733
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There are tons of idiots out there that believe you can just click print on a picture and it will print the whole gun built as an entirety, which isnt true. As of now there are still a ton of metallic bits that are amost necessary in the function of a firearm: Spring, firing pin, and chamber.
I like the hammer pictures. I will probably post those on facebook.
#734
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nth degrees of success.
If Ryan_G's only point is to question whether it's a good decision to share the plans publicly...sure, that's fine. I personally don't find the idea particularly interesting other than as a demonstration of technology, nor would I want the risk/liability of hosting/sharing the plans.
But then, there's all kinds of things that I find unwise or imprudent that I don't favor any kind of public or government action against. I wouldn't ride a bicycle on public roads without a helmet, but I believe I have a right to take that risk.
Potentially because it could be cheaper or easier to acquire, easier to get past a metal detector, and easier to dispose of / more difficult to trace.
The same can be said of a disgruntled divorcee who wants to assassinate their ex-spouse or judge in a courtroom. Print two: one for murder and one for suicide.
Edit: Or a middle class kid who doesn't know any criminals from which to buy an illegal firearm but does have access to a 3D printer and torrents.
I think Ryan_G makes very valid points. AGAIN with the disclaimer that "I am not sure it's a good idea" does NOT equal "I think it's a bad idea."
The same can be said of a disgruntled divorcee who wants to assassinate their ex-spouse or judge in a courtroom. Print two: one for murder and one for suicide.
Edit: Or a middle class kid who doesn't know any criminals from which to buy an illegal firearm but does have access to a 3D printer and torrents.
I think Ryan_G makes very valid points. AGAIN with the disclaimer that "I am not sure it's a good idea" does NOT equal "I think it's a bad idea."
But then, there's all kinds of things that I find unwise or imprudent that I don't favor any kind of public or government action against. I wouldn't ride a bicycle on public roads without a helmet, but I believe I have a right to take that risk.
#735
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like I said, I am not questioning whether this should be legal or not. I am just questioning whether it was ethical. Taking personal risk is one thing. Releasing plans that could be potentially used by others to illegally take lives is completely different. I am not saying they would be liable for the murder legally because they did not print the gun or pull the trigger. I am just pointing out that people are doing **** that could potentially have real consequences without really thinking it through.
As I stated before this gun has no practical purpose for anyone other than an assassin. It would be a **** self defense gun, a **** range gun, and a terrible way to keep the government in check with armed citizens considering it holds a single bullet. What it is very useful for is sneaking by metal detectors killing someone and then disposing of it with little worry that it could be traced back to you.
It just shocks me that people do this **** under the guise of some cause when it serves no purpose to better said cause. I do not think it should be banned, taken down, or that the creators should be held legally liable for anything. I do believe it was a terrible decision.
As I stated before this gun has no practical purpose for anyone other than an assassin. It would be a **** self defense gun, a **** range gun, and a terrible way to keep the government in check with armed citizens considering it holds a single bullet. What it is very useful for is sneaking by metal detectors killing someone and then disposing of it with little worry that it could be traced back to you.
It just shocks me that people do this **** under the guise of some cause when it serves no purpose to better said cause. I do not think it should be banned, taken down, or that the creators should be held legally liable for anything. I do believe it was a terrible decision.
#736
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I understand that. I just don't approach the discussion from that angle most of the time. In a world with rental trucks filled with ANFO, pressure cooker bombs, and government drones, someone messing around with a mostly plastic gun design doesn't bother me. And if Lars Ulrich can't stop anonymous file-sharing, how does the government hope to? That particular Pandora's Box has been opened already. I'm not really interested in thinking about whether some guy I don't know should have shared the files or not; given the existence of the files and the existence of file-sharing, it was inevitable. It was simply a matter of when someone would do it.
In general, though, I'd say that trying to argue something might be unethical simply because you don't see the utility in it is exactly the kind of argument that gets co-opted by the anti-gunners. They agree with you about the plastic gun; they just go one logical step further and question why anyone really needs an AR-15, or a AK-47, or a Saiga 12.
Besides, who knows what kinds of advances in gun technology we might see if thousands or millions of gunsmiths can start tinkering with gun design? We could have a whole new generation of Gaston Glocks or Justin Moons.
In general, though, I'd say that trying to argue something might be unethical simply because you don't see the utility in it is exactly the kind of argument that gets co-opted by the anti-gunners. They agree with you about the plastic gun; they just go one logical step further and question why anyone really needs an AR-15, or a AK-47, or a Saiga 12.
Besides, who knows what kinds of advances in gun technology we might see if thousands or millions of gunsmiths can start tinkering with gun design? We could have a whole new generation of Gaston Glocks or Justin Moons.
#739
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You know the government is getting ridiculously desperate when it resorts to this sort of thing:
The alleged claim by the government came under ITAR, which is a law that regulates the export of materials deemed to be of interest on national security grounds.
For instance you cannot export (without specific clearance) things like high-quality night-vision equipment. You can buy that sort of thing as a civilian in the United States, and it's perfectly legal. There are plenty of legal reasons to want that sort of equipment.
But you cannot export that technology to other nations with a determination that the export will not land in the hands of the "wrong people" in other nations, particularly those nations that would (or might) use that technology in warfare against the United States.
That seems to make sense on a facial level.
But applying ITAR to information is a different thing entirely. First, it's pointless, since once the information is out -- it's out. There are literally hundreds of thousands of copies of these files around the Internet already; they're everywhere. Trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle is a waste of time.
There is also the legal reality on this -- ITAR exempts "libraries" (for obvious and appropriate reasons) as it recognizes that you're wasting your time to try to stop information alone from being distributed.
That the government went here to try to force Distributed Defense to take these files down shows exactly how desperate they are. Not only is this law unlikely to hold up when challenged (and I presume it will be) that they used this excuse says quite loudly that they could not come up with an actual, legitimate legal means by which they could stop the firm from doing what it is doing -- that is, using technology to restore and protect the Second Amendment.
Technology is a funny thing -- it frequently outruns the desires of those who would exert control to project their power. Sure, the military and government use technology to spy on people, including Americans. But Americans and others can use technology to make it very hard for government to spy on them, should they so wish and be willing to take the steps necessary to do so.
In the end analysis what The Government is doing here is pointless; it cannot "win" this fight as the data is already out in the public.
But what it can do, and is doing, is throw a temper tantrum.
“[Defense Distributed's] files are being removed from public access at the request of the U.S. Department of Defense Trade Controls," read a banner atop the website. "Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.”
For instance you cannot export (without specific clearance) things like high-quality night-vision equipment. You can buy that sort of thing as a civilian in the United States, and it's perfectly legal. There are plenty of legal reasons to want that sort of equipment.
But you cannot export that technology to other nations with a determination that the export will not land in the hands of the "wrong people" in other nations, particularly those nations that would (or might) use that technology in warfare against the United States.
That seems to make sense on a facial level.
But applying ITAR to information is a different thing entirely. First, it's pointless, since once the information is out -- it's out. There are literally hundreds of thousands of copies of these files around the Internet already; they're everywhere. Trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle is a waste of time.
There is also the legal reality on this -- ITAR exempts "libraries" (for obvious and appropriate reasons) as it recognizes that you're wasting your time to try to stop information alone from being distributed.
That the government went here to try to force Distributed Defense to take these files down shows exactly how desperate they are. Not only is this law unlikely to hold up when challenged (and I presume it will be) that they used this excuse says quite loudly that they could not come up with an actual, legitimate legal means by which they could stop the firm from doing what it is doing -- that is, using technology to restore and protect the Second Amendment.
Technology is a funny thing -- it frequently outruns the desires of those who would exert control to project their power. Sure, the military and government use technology to spy on people, including Americans. But Americans and others can use technology to make it very hard for government to spy on them, should they so wish and be willing to take the steps necessary to do so.
In the end analysis what The Government is doing here is pointless; it cannot "win" this fight as the data is already out in the public.
But what it can do, and is doing, is throw a temper tantrum.
#740
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like I said before, its not a issue that "OMG, PRINTING IS BERD! HUR DUR HUR DURRRRRR"
Its just it bothers me to have what is usually reinforced, hardened and tempered bits made from plastic. I have had one gun grenade on me and I want that to be the last--- a vietnam era M16A1 at the qualifying range @ Lackland AFB.
All plastic scares the **** out of me, but it is not right that this potential for shared knowledge and potential advancement in all sorts of technology to be regulated because "guns are bad."
What they arent telling you is that people have been making guns LEGALLY and ILLEGALLY like "zip-guns" for YEARS for around $20 bucks. I even made one legally (then i broke the nail firing pin) that fired 20 gauge shotgun shells like one of these nerf ball guns
![](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwano_oeynVUkLyE-1lfmjSgfur98X_mjbBgNuh5QjMPorjLBx)
but for them to say "we cannot learned to do that because you are going to kill someone" is absolutely ridiculous. Criminals will ALWAYS find ways.
Its just it bothers me to have what is usually reinforced, hardened and tempered bits made from plastic. I have had one gun grenade on me and I want that to be the last--- a vietnam era M16A1 at the qualifying range @ Lackland AFB.
All plastic scares the **** out of me, but it is not right that this potential for shared knowledge and potential advancement in all sorts of technology to be regulated because "guns are bad."
What they arent telling you is that people have been making guns LEGALLY and ILLEGALLY like "zip-guns" for YEARS for around $20 bucks. I even made one legally (then i broke the nail firing pin) that fired 20 gauge shotgun shells like one of these nerf ball guns
but for them to say "we cannot learned to do that because you are going to kill someone" is absolutely ridiculous. Criminals will ALWAYS find ways.