Downloadable guns and the futility of trying to remove something from the internet

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard someone call child pornography laws "censorship" before. They have nothing to do with each other and suggesting otherwise is either a massive strawman, or just really ignorant and not thought though.

Banning child pornography is not censorship. I can't believe we had to explain this.

[AniThyng]

Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard someone call child pornography laws "censorship" before. They have nothing to do with each other and suggesting otherwise is either a massive strawman, or just really ignorant and not thought though.

Banning child pornography is not censorship. I can't believe we had to explain this.

Fwiw I didn't call it censorship, I called it information that governments (rightly) impose punitive penalties on for distributing.

[AniThyng]

But I concede that was perhaps going too far. Everything else I can think of is arguably debatable as to the legitimacy of they being blocked - regular porn, images that may be offensive (a certain kind of cartoon images of a certain historical figure that lead to massive protests come to mind...) , lgbt centric material Etc etc.

[Jub]

*snip*

I'm all for banning CP from the internet, but you're missing the actual point here.

Say country A has reasonably set the age of consent to make porn at 18, and extend this rule to any depiction of sexual attacks including cartoons, drawings, etc. Country B has laws they also see as reasonable and allows IRL porn actresses to be as young as 16 but allows drawings to be younger than that to say 14. Country C is more strict and has the age of consent for porn at 21, and has declared the porn for nations A and B to be illegal and is going out of its way to pressure hosts external to its borders to remove any porn that they deem illegal. Which nation is in the right here and are any freedoms being encroached upon if Country C gets its way?

If there was a more extreme County D, which sets the age of consent at pubescence (something we'd find highly questionable) while allowing art to depict any age. For the sake of argument let's say IRL CP of pre-pubescent children has a prevalence of literally zero in Country D. Should their national rights be infringed upon and their porn banned from the wider internet?

I get that this isn't related to the gun side of freedom of information but it is very much a question in an increasingly globalized world. This could also touch on animal cruelty (literally killing or maiming animals for "art") and bestiality as different nations have taken different stances on these issues with regard to their media.

If a mod wants to shut this discussion down or even just split it to its own thread I'm 100% understanding. It's not a comfortable topic but it does seem worth talking about as more non-western cultures join the world's internet.

[Elheru Aran]

Perhaps the CP/whatever is worth a separate discussion. The gun thing, I think, is possibly a different issue, in that it pertains to something that can be downloaded off the Internet and then used to harm -other- people. Also the concept of being able to print stuff that's restricted/controlled.

In re: regional differences in what's legal and what's not: it's up to each country to enforce its own laws. Material that's legal in one country may be restricted in another; it's up to the country that restricts it to attempt to restrict access to such material and prosecute violations.

That said, there's probably a place for some kind of international agreement upon the Internet.

[Lonestar]

Sure, it's a wide gulf, but clearly there is a line in the sand we draw where we say "these information/data/images" are ok and "these other information/data/images are not ok and possession and distribution are not ok, almost without exemption."

Right around the "consent" part.

It really stretches the bounds of credulity to say that plans for homemade firearms should be banned because that's dangerous for public consumption. Developed countries aren't exactly overflowing with violent crime where the the firearms were zip guns. You might as well ban the Anarchist Cookbook or Poor Man's James Bond. The States that are losing their minds and suing to stop defense distributed form hosting the files don't go after those media sources nor, I presume with a high degree of confidence, shake down army surplus stores for old army FMs/TMs about improvised firearms.

[Zixinus]

The point about home-made primers: yes, you can make homemade too, but do you notice a pattern here?

The expenses (both in physical resources and expertise) keep going up, the possible lethality to the user go up while the lethality compared to a legal, proper gun go down.

If legal measures put people who want to make their own guns at a significant disadvantage, is the law not effective? If an amateur is going to make a firearm greatly more ineffective than a properly-made, legal firearm, then the effect is there and works. I mean, let's just look at the disadvantages of a home-made gun here:
- inferior materials that were not designed to withstand explosions. May end up exploding in the user's face at unexpected time.
- Inferior materials and lack of tools compensated with design that decrease accuracy (smooth barrels are easier than rifled), reliability (above), increase weight (thicker materials) and favor simplified actions (single-shot versus semi-automatic). This is not mentioning that this makes illegal makers go away from original, time-tested designs to facilitate cheap and feasible production.
- inferior home-made ammuntion that is less powerful, decreasing lethality and range.
- inferior home-made primers that either increase complexity of the gun (an airgun-ignitire will need to compress air) or inferior (I wonder how many shots can an home-made electrical primer take).
- non-interchanability of ammunition due to different illegal weapon and ammo manufacturers not being forced to adhear to industrial standards.

Advantages I guess?
+ Guns used in crimes are even more disposable. But they are often already are.
+ No legal requirements to adhear to, so they can make banned hollowpoints and whatever. But you can already can buy hollowpoints for almost every calibre.

There is also the fact that you are requiring greater organization on part of those that attempt to make illegal firearms and ammunition.

Personally I feel that distributing plans for easy home manufacture of firearms over the internet is irresponsible and should probably be illegal, but I'm less bothered by that than by the overreacting arguments of people insisting that there should be NO restrictions whatsoever, which is at best a poorly-thought-out argument based on a slippery slope fallacy.

I would like to remind you that the plans for nuclear bombs also exists on the Internet and to a extent in most technology-oriented universities. The information necessary to make a gun is much easier, much more widespread and much more distributed. During WW2, Allies made plans for simplified firearms that was distributed among occupied territories as well as such weapons spread out.

The problem isn't slippery slopes, the problem is denial of reality. You are trying to stop the spread of not specific media (as in CP), but of old knowledge. In the information age. About books that are probably widespread in most country's libraries. Hell, do you know how widespread is stuff like the Anarachist's cookbook? Do I need to further explain why this is unenforceable to you?

[Jub]

I would like to remind you that the plans for nuclear bombs also exists on the Internet and to a extent in most technology-oriented universities. The information necessary to make a gun is much easier, much more widespread and much more distributed. During WW2, Allies made plans for simplified firearms that was distributed among occupied territories as well as such weapons spread out.

The problem isn't slippery slopes, the problem is denial of reality. You are trying to stop the spread of not specific media (as in CP), but of old knowledge. In the information age. About books that are probably widespread in most country's libraries. Hell, do you know how widespread is stuff like the Anarachist's cookbook? Do I need to further explain why this is unenforceable to you?

The exact patent data for nearly every firearm is also freely open to the public. Yes, building to those specifications would require more tooling than most individuals but any organization with a decent level of funding could assemble a machine shop capable of making a weapon capable of hosing down a crowd with bullets or being pressed into somebody's back as an assassination method. As 3d printing technology becomes more common this might get down to where 'real' firearms and ammo can be made in-house by a single person with a cad file and some basic chemistry knowledge.

Even as anti-firearm as I can be, I don't see this as a massive problem because many firearms crimes are crimes of passion, not the sort of thing you spend a week building a gun for. In the case os spree killers and terrorist cells, there are other methods that are less likely to get you found out before the attack and for all the press they generate they kill far fewer people than crimes of passion and general armed robberies/muggings do on a yearly basis. They suck but we fear them far more than we should.

[Formless]

*snip*

I'm all for banning CP from the internet, but you're missing the actual point here.

Say country A has reasonably set the age of consent to make porn at 18, and extend this rule to any depiction of sexual attacks including cartoons, drawings, etc. Country B has laws they also see as reasonable and allows IRL porn actresses to be as young as 16 but allows drawings to be younger than that to say 14. Country C is more strict and has the age of consent for porn at 21, and has declared the porn for nations A and B to be illegal and is going out of its way to pressure hosts external to its borders to remove any porn that they deem illegal. Which nation is in the right here and are any freedoms being encroached upon if Country C gets its way?

If there was a more extreme County D, which sets the age of consent at pubescence (something we'd find highly questionable) while allowing art to depict any age. For the sake of argument let's say IRL CP of pre-pubescent children has a prevalence of literally zero in Country D. Should their national rights be infringed upon and their porn banned from the wider internet?

This is a good case study in why hypothetical questions can sometimes inspire confusion more than clarity. The reality is that every developed nation I can think of has a law against the creation and distribution of CP. That includes the otherwise Free Speech loving, censorship hating United States. It also includes Japan, and its interesting because they didn't add such a law until 2015. You know what changed their stance? Outside pressure from other developed nations. That's right, the Japanese government was shamed into prohibiting something literally every other First world nation thought was wrong. Its almost like ethics has the power to shape politics or something.

Look, your argument might have worked if I were arguing in favor of TRR's position. But I am not, am I? I'm saying both of you are wrong to even go off on this tangent in this thread. Its a unique topic, not comparable to main thrust of the thread.

You can't discuss CP without discussing its relationship to pedophilia, because they are the primary if not sole audience for it. Regardless of how you want to define a "minor" for the purposes of the law, we know that CP is psychologically harmful regardless. It is a reinforcer for a pedophile's arousal to children, and any time you have a Pavlovian response to something negative, you can't eliminate that response without eliminating the reinforcer. That's why prisons that contain child molesters don't let them have pornography of any kind, not just CP. Hell, they also frequently give them anaphordesiacs just to be sure. And no, this isn't limited to those who have an unhealthy attraction towards pre-pubescent children, an attraction towards pubescent preteens and even teens is problematic as well, because frankly teenagers are identifiable or else pedophiles wouldn't be interested in them to begin with. So yes, even virtual pornographic depictions of minors, including identifiable teenagers, is inherently harmful to the very people who the pornography is made for and seek it out.

Can you say the same of literally any other kind of media? For all the studies I have seen on the psychological effects of normal pornography and violent video games, the answer seems to be a resounding "no". Pedophiles are weird.

And before it comes up again, Age of Consent is only useful in this discussion insofar as it is useful for defining who is harmed by pedophiles. There are many details that matter to Age of Consent that don't matter to the porn industry. For instance, there is usually exceptions for two teens of similar age having consensual sex with each other; the law exists to protect them from being exploited by adults, but there are different power dynamics when both parties are the same age. When it comes to pornography, though, its a different context, because you can't control who consumes it once its out there. It is perfectly reasonable to, for instance, set the Age of Consent at 18 but legally require performers in the porn industry to be at least 21. Different contexts, different protections under the law.

[The Romulan Republic]

The point about home-made primers: yes, you can make homemade too, but do you notice a pattern here?

The expenses (both in physical resources and expertise) keep going up, the possible lethality to the user go up while the lethality compared to a legal, proper gun go down.

If legal measures put people who want to make their own guns at a significant disadvantage, is the law not effective? If an amateur is going to make a firearm greatly more ineffective than a properly-made, legal firearm, then the effect is there and works. I mean, let's just look at the disadvantages of a home-made gun here:
- inferior materials that were not designed to withstand explosions. May end up exploding in the user's face at unexpected time.
- Inferior materials and lack of tools compensated with design that decrease accuracy (smooth barrels are easier than rifled), reliability (above), increase weight (thicker materials) and favor simplified actions (single-shot versus semi-automatic). This is not mentioning that this makes illegal makers go away from original, time-tested designs to facilitate cheap and feasible production.
- inferior home-made ammuntion that is less powerful, decreasing lethality and range.
- inferior home-made primers that either increase complexity of the gun (an airgun-ignitire will need to compress air) or inferior (I wonder how many shots can an home-made electrical primer take).
- non-interchanability of ammunition due to different illegal weapon and ammo manufacturers not being forced to adhear to industrial standards.

Advantages I guess?
+ Guns used in crimes are even more disposable. But they are often already are.
+ No legal requirements to adhear to, so they can make banned hollowpoints and whatever. But you can already can buy hollowpoints for almost every calibre.

There is also the fact that you are requiring greater organization on part of those that attempt to make illegal firearms and ammunition.

Personally I feel that distributing plans for easy home manufacture of firearms over the internet is irresponsible and should probably be illegal, but I'm less bothered by that than by the overreacting arguments of people insisting that there should be NO restrictions whatsoever, which is at best a poorly-thought-out argument based on a slippery slope fallacy.

I would like to remind you that the plans for nuclear bombs also exists on the Internet and to a extent in most technology-oriented universities. The information necessary to make a gun is much easier, much more widespread and much more distributed. During WW2, Allies made plans for simplified firearms that was distributed among occupied territories as well as such weapons spread out.

The problem isn't slippery slopes, the problem is denial of reality. You are trying to stop the spread of not specific media (as in CP), but of old knowledge. In the information age. About books that are probably widespread in most country's libraries. Hell, do you know how widespread is stuff like the Anarachist's cookbook? Do I need to further explain why this is unenforceable to you?

The difference between distributing plans for guns and distributing plans for nuclear bombs is that nuclear bombs are not something that the average person can whip up in their garage even if they do have the plans. It takes vast amounts of money, time, and access to radioactive materials that are, if not easy to regulate, at least easier to regulate than the internet.

Whereas anyone with enough money for a 3D printer (a few hundred dollars, right?) can use these plans to make a completely unregulated firearm, regardless of whether they have, say, a criminal record, or a history of violent mental instability.

No, we won't be able to completely eliminate the information. Just like the police will not be able to catch every child pornographer, or arrest every murderer or thief for that matter. We still make those things illegal, both to send a message that society does not condone these destructive acts, and to allow law enforcement to take action to reduce the number of them, to keep a lid on them, even though we'll never realistically prevent them altogether.

Some laws may just not be practically enforceable, and not worth trying to enforce. But the simple fact that we won't be able to completely stop something is not an argument against making it illegal- because by that reasoning, we should have no laws at all.

But as I said, my main issue with this thread is not whether plans for printed guns should be banned. You can probably make a reasonable argument that the cost of trying to enforce such a ban, politically and financially, would outweigh the risk of simply allowing the information to be out there. My problem is with the ridiculous argument some of the posters in this thread employed, which amounted to suggesting that any regulation of information whatsoever will lead to despotism. Which is absolutely an appropriate use of the term "slippery slope fallacy".

I would like to remind you that the plans for nuclear bombs also exists on the Internet and to a extent in most technology-oriented universities. The information necessary to make a gun is much easier, much more widespread and much more distributed. During WW2, Allies made plans for simplified firearms that was distributed among occupied territories as well as such weapons spread out.

The problem isn't slippery slopes, the problem is denial of reality. You are trying to stop the spread of not specific media (as in CP), but of old knowledge. In the information age. About books that are probably widespread in most country's libraries. Hell, do you know how widespread is stuff like the Anarachist's cookbook? Do I need to further explain why this is unenforceable to you?

The exact patent data for nearly every firearm is also freely open to the public. Yes, building to those specifications would require more tooling than most individuals but any organization with a decent level of funding could assemble a machine shop capable of making a weapon capable of hosing down a crowd with bullets or being pressed into somebody's back as an assassination method. As 3d printing technology becomes more common this might get down to where 'real' firearms and ammo can be made in-house by a single person with a cad file and some basic chemistry knowledge.

Even as anti-firearm as I can be, I don't see this as a massive problem because many firearms crimes are crimes of passion, not the sort of thing you spend a week building a gun for. In the case os spree killers and terrorist cells, there are other methods that are less likely to get you found out before the attack and for all the press they generate they kill far fewer people than crimes of passion and general armed robberies/muggings do on a yearly basis. They suck but we fear them far more than we should.

A lot of gun crimes are crimes of passion, but as you noted, the ones that are the main focus of the anti-gun movement, ie mass/spree shooters, generally aren't. Usually they seem to be preceded by months or years of fanaticizing, weeks of prep, often threats/ manifestos before-hand.

And robberies and organized crime are generally planned in advance, of course.

We need other tools to combat crimes of passion (better mental health care, a stronger social safety net, and a serious reevaluation of America's culture of violence are all on the list). But restrictions to prevent printed guns would presumably mainly be there to create an impediment to would-be mass shooters/terrorists. Though it would also drive up the cost of acquiring firearms for criminals/gangs, perhaps, and hopefully reduce the overall number of people who had guns available in a moment of "passion".

The issue here is not that banning 3D printed guns will be a magic solution to all gun violence ever- there will not be a single solution to all gun violence, and anyone who says there is is pushing an ulterior agenda (or is an idiot). But its a part of the overall picture which cannot be ignored. Because of anyone can buy a 3D printer, download a plan off the internet, and make a gun, then any sort of regulation of firearms becomes effectively impossible.

Another alternative, I suppose, would be to require people to pass background checks to buy a 3D printer. That may be necessary to consider, at some point.

[Formless]

The point about home-made primers: yes, you can make homemade too, but do you notice a pattern here?

The expenses (both in physical resources and expertise) keep going up, the possible lethality to the user go up while the lethality compared to a legal, proper gun go down.

Not really. I can probably make dozens of functional primers out of one good sized box of matches, possibly cheaper even than buying commercial primers. The main problem is one of reliability and if I recall they are a bit corrosive, but even the risk isn't that much higher than handloading commercial primers. The commercial stuff literally has high explosive compounds in them, and inserting primers is already considered one of the most dangerous steps in the process of hand loading ammunition. But people hand load all the time without blowing their fingers off. Even in the worst case scenario, a primer exploding probably won't kill you. Hurt you? Oh, definitely. How badly depends on how far into the process you are, and it gets worse if lots of primers go off at once.

And again, this is assuming chemical primers remain the go-to method of setting off gunpowder charges, but with the existence of electrical and pneumatic priming methods that primacy may be challenged in the future. It depends on how compatible any given priming technology is with future manufacturing technology.

If legal measures put people who want to make their own guns at a significant disadvantage, is the law not effective?

It would be a serious challenge to the gun control laws in many countries. Maybe it won't be a problem in the United States where guns are everywhere or even South Africa, but Britain? Australia? Even effective printable black powder firearms would make their lawmakers shit bricks.

And if innovators can create workarounds to those disadvantages, then it would challenge even those countries that are less restrictive about guns. For instance:

- inferior materials that were not designed to withstand explosions. May end up exploding in the user's face at unexpected time.

For now, this remains a legitimate reason not to worry about 3d printed guns and perhaps focus more attention on weapons machined out of metal. However, all it would take to flip that around would be if someone resurrected the old Gyroget concept and could make the ammo economic to manufacture. Sure, rocket bullets had accuracy issues stemming from inconsistent manufacturing and inherent problems with wind, but their one advantage is that they could be fired from guns that were built like toys. The barrels were even ported as a way of showing off that they had precisely zero internal pressure to deal with-- the bullet gets most of its velocity over the first few meters of its acceleration through air instead. Such a projectile, if it could be recreated practically and economically, would be ideal for a plastic gun. The worst case scenario would more likely be the plastic burning or melting, not the weapon exploding. I think certain people could very well put up with some inherent accuracy problems in exchange for a functional and inexpensive gun.

- inferior home-made primers that either increase complexity of the gun (an airgun-ignitire will need to compress air) or inferior (I wonder how many shots can an home-made electrical primer take).

A spark gap can be fired ten thousand times and the most you would have to do to maintain it is lengthen or replace the electrodes. Its a super simple, super reliable technology, and people use it all the time in potato cannons. Alternatively, another electrical firing method is basically a resistor that explodes when current is passed through it. A bit finicky in comparison, but the technology can set off modern smokeless powder (or even high explosives) and the resistors have other legitimate uses.

- non-interchanability of ammunition due to different illegal weapon and ammo manufacturers not being forced to adhear to industrial standards.

Not all firearm designs require standardized ammo, or even use cartridges. I already posted one such example. If rocket bullets ever became a thing, they could also probably be fired through an oversized bore and the only problem would be the potential for further accuracy reduction.

[Jub]

This is a good case study in why hypothetical questions can sometimes inspire confusion more than clarity. The reality is that every developed nation I can think of has a law against the creation and distribution of CP. That includes the otherwise Free Speech loving, censorship hating United States. It also includes Japan, and its interesting because they didn't add such a law until 2015. You know what changed their stance? Outside pressure from other developed nations. That's right, the Japanese government was shamed into prohibiting something literally every other First world nation thought was wrong. Its almost like ethics has the power to shape politics or something.

In Japan's case, it's more likely that it just wasn't a hill they were willing to die on unlike the more harmful whaling that they've refused to be turned away from. As for it being ethics shaping politics, I'm not sure I'd agree given that nations have been bullied into changing laws for entirely non-ethical reasons via the same mechanisms; New Zealand getting bullied by Warner Brothers on laws related to organized labour in filming or again New Zealand being pressured by mainly the US and RIAA about internet piracy. Neither are ethical issues but a smaller nation was still pressed to act in a way it likely wouldn't have otherwise by outside forces because said outside force benefitted from said change.

Look, your argument might have worked if I were arguing in favor of TRR's position. But I am not, am I? I'm saying both of you are wrong to even go off on this tangent in this thread. Its a unique topic, not comparable to main thrust of the thread.

Hence my asking for this to be split.

You can't discuss CP without discussing its relationship to pedophilia, because they are the primary if not sole audience for it. Regardless of how you want to define a "minor" for the purposes of the law, we know that CP is psychologically harmful regardless. It is a reinforcer for a pedophile's arousal to children, and any time you have a Pavlovian response to something negative, you can't eliminate that response without eliminating the reinforcer. That's why prisons that contain child molesters don't let them have pornography of any kind, not just CP. Hell, they also frequently give them anaphordesiacs just to be sure. And no, this isn't limited to those who have an unhealthy attraction towards pre-pubescent children, an attraction towards pubescent preteens and even teens is problematic as well, because frankly teenagers are identifiable or else pedophiles wouldn't be interested in them to begin with. So yes, even virtual pornographic depictions of minors, including identifiable teenagers, is inherently harmful to the very people who the pornography is made for and seek it out.

I agree with that assessment nearly entirely. I do think there are cases, where certain stories can't be told unless the characters are able to be placed in a certain context (ie. a high school romance between a first and third year student) we can argue about if such a topic is something porn should be made about but in such a case I think the attraction is to the setting and not necessarily the age of the character. To that end, I don't think all porn featuring characters that the west considers underaged solely appeal to closet pedo/ephebophiles.

It's not a hill that I want to die on but I think that some stories can use obscenity, bordering and crossing the line into porn, in a way that couldn't be achieved without the inclusion of elements that are considered tasteless or even, in extreme cases, illegal. I don't think these stories solely appeal to people who otherwise have underlying issues that would lead to criminal ideation or, more seriously, criminal acts anymore so than people who enjoy simulated snuff films like Hostel or Saw are at risk to commit crimes of that nature. This is obviously different when it comes to depicting acts that reinforce pedophilic behavior as, if your assertions are correct this has a strong reinforcing behavior not found with other potentially problematic acts.

Are there enough pedophiles being reinforced to the point of acting out their fantasies by drawings, 3d animations, etc. to make banning it out of concern for public safety valid. I don't know and I'm not qualified to research the subject, though I'd imagine much like with firearms and drugs there could exist a point where decriminalization is more desirable than cases where no direct harm was caused to a child. Again, not a hill I'm going to die on nor a subject I can research merely a supposition based on the difficulty of tracking original sources on the internet and the prevalence of, mainly Japanese, lolita porn on the internet.

And before it comes up again, Age of Consent is only useful in this discussion insofar as it is useful for defining who is harmed by pedophiles. There are many details that matter to Age of Consent that don't matter to the porn industry. For instance, there is usually exceptions for two teens of similar age having consensual sex with each other; the law exists to protect them from being exploited by adults, but there are different power dynamics when both parties are the same age. When it comes to pornography, though, its a different context, because you can't control who consumes it once its out there. It is perfectly reasonable to, for instance, set the Age of Consent at 18 but legally require performers in the porn industry to be at least 21. Different contexts, different protections under the law.

Yes, I do agree that the two shouldn't be linked, and fully support laws that reflect life (ie. Romeo and Juliet laws, allowing parents to have awkward nude baby pictures, etc.). That said, with increased access to the means of self-publishing pornography what's keeping physically developed teens with fake IDs from doing cam shows at ages well below the commonly accepted 18? Given that we know brains aren't fully developed until our mid 20's is there that large a gulf between a then 16-year-old regretting doing porn and a then 19-year-old having the same regret? What of those who do porn at young ages and don't have any regrets, can we argue that they were harmed by their choice and should they and those they worked with be punished in the name of stopping the potential future exploitation of others who may not feel the same way looking back?

The reality is it's getting easier and easier for people of any age to willing post nudes of themselves online, sometimes for profit, and we're going to face greater and greater issues policing these behaviors as time goes on. There will be a point where, somewhat similarly to the war on drugs, more harm is caused by enforcement than the crime itself. If we assume this to be true it's not too early to start conversations like this.

[Jub]

I'm purposefully double posting so that the CP related posts are easier to split without making this thread harder to follow.

A lot of gun crimes are crimes of passion, but as you noted, the ones that are the main focus of the anti-gun movement, ie mass/spree shooters, generally aren't. Usually they seem to be preceded by months or years of fanaticizing, weeks of prep, often threats/ manifestos before-hand.

Yes but as awful as these killers are they make up a vanishingly small percentage of gun deaths/injuries per annum. I'd assert that they are feared disproportionately due to the way the media covers them and aren't actually that much of a threat.

And robberies and organized crime are generally planned in advance, of course.

Most robberies are smash and grabs, muggings, or carjackings. The sort of crime where very minimal, if any, planning is required on beyond the criminal needing a weapon and a strong enough motivation to commit the crime.

Another alternative, I suppose, would be to require people to pass background checks to buy a 3D printer. That may be necessary to consider, at some point.

If that's the case why don't we restrict any machine that could create a restricted item? The obvious answer is because 99.9% of people won't ever build anything illegal with said tools and the people that do make something illegal (ie. Nunchucks are illegal in Canada and you can make them with string and two pencils) will most likely do so by accident and never use them in a crime. Your best bet is to instead require licensing to produce weapons with said technology and too at a firmware level restrict 3d printers from making functional weapons unless the user registers their device with a licensing body. Even this is likely to just be ineffective busy work but it does add an extra charge that can be made to stick if you bust somebody planning a crime with 3d printed weapons.

[Zixinus]

TheRomulanRepublic

The difference between distributing plans for guns and distributing plans for nuclear bombs is that nuclear bombs are not something that the average person can whip up in their garage even if they do have the plans. It takes vast amounts of money, time, and access to radioactive materials that are, if not easy to regulate, at least easier to regulate than the internet.

Except this has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

My point is this: the knowledge on how to create the most destructive device known to humanity is impossible to erase and contain. Why do you expect it to work with something that is even more widespread, more easy to understand and more basic? In the information age?

The djinn is out of the bottle. You can admit reality and handle it as it, or you can delude yourself thinking that you can just legislate it back into the bottle.

Whereas anyone with enough money for a 3D printer (a few hundred dollars, right?) can use these plans to make a completely unregulated firearm, regardless of whether they have, say, a criminal record, or a history of violent mental instability.

The problem is that anyone already can do that without a 3D printer with access to well-stocked hardware store and a little metalworking. See the video I linked earlier.

3D printers are a problem in that they lower the bar even further. There are ways to handle that. Simply saying that the files used to make guns should not exist by law is just delusional and useless.

No, we won't be able to completely eliminate the information. Just like the police will not be able to catch every child pornographer, or arrest every murderer or thief for that matter. We still make those things illegal, both to send a message that society does not condone these destructive acts, and to allow law enforcement to take action to reduce the number of them, to keep a lid on them, even though we'll never realistically prevent them altogether.

In other words, you really do not understand the concept of "unenforceable".

Unenforcable does not mean that it is difficult to enforce or the enforcing entity (that has both the legal tools and authorization to enforce it) is insufficient/inadaqvate/fledgling. That can be fixed by giving more funding or providing the necessary legal tools.

It means that the only way to enforce the law would require divine powers to do it. As no government has divine powers, the law has as much bearing on reality as if it did not exist. You are not reducing anything because no enforcer of the law will bother or care or even know. The sole purpose of such laws is to make yourself feel better while archiving nothing.

Why?

Because what you want is the same as those that want to stop internet piracy. Yet internet piracy is alive and quite well. This is billions of dollars of lobbying, ridiculously harsh penalties (fining children thousands of dollars or more for downloading mp3s), new laws and ever-growing cancer of a legal powers desperately trying to control the Internet.

Books like the Anarchist's cookbook, a book deliberately written to contain tools for revolution/terrorism that includes recipes for things like nerve gas and various bombs, could not be suppressed. You can download it after some googling. It's that simple. If you know how to use p2p and that is so simple that children can do it. Because children regularly do it.

What you are proposing is trying to do that. This is not to mention that the Anarchist's cookbook was a compilation of a series of other books that the author got from a library.

Some laws may just not be practically enforceable, and not worth trying to enforce. But the simple fact that we won't be able to completely stop something is not an argument against making it illegal- because by that reasoning, we should have no laws at all.

No you dump, tryannical shit, it means that you should make laws that are actually enforceable instead.

Furthermore, you should make laws on careful consideration of a problem rather than impulse and delusional thinking that making something illegal makes it disappear. You know, base laws from the lessons taught by history and centuries of experiences in making laws (and more importantly, how not to make laws). Rather than what you dislike.

For example: a law that punished people that actually made 3D-printed firearms is enforcable. Which in turn requires figuring out how to seperate a 3D printed gun from a toy gun. It is something that previous legal tools, such as a warrant to search a place, can find and can display evidence for.

But as I said, my main issue with this thread is not whether plans for printed guns should be banned. You can probably make a reasonable argument that the cost of trying to enforce such a ban, politically and financially, would outweigh the risk of simply allowing the information to be out there.

The problem is that there is no way to enforce the law. I don't have to make a reasonable argument because there is no argument to be had. You don't control information.

My problem is with the ridiculous argument some of the posters in this thread employed, which amounted to suggesting that any regulation of information whatsoever will lead to despotism.

Because it has and will through history. Because that's what RIAA and the like have done. Because that's what despotic governments do today. They try to control the internet and actually are succeeding.


Formless:

I can probably make dozens of functional primers out of one good sized box of matches, possibly cheaper even than buying commercial primers. The main problem is one of reliability and if I recall they are a bit corrosive, but even the risk isn't that much higher than handloading commercial primers.

My problem is the bolded parts. What is the practical experience?

Furthermore, if it requires a would-be criminal gang to learn handloading to make their guns, as opposed to just buying ready-made cartridges, that too increases cost required for the gang to use firearms as well as risks. While also ensuring (to an extent) that they have inferior firearms.

There will be a point where a sufficiently large criminal organization can buy both the tools and expertise to make proper firearms and ammunition (as opposed to just smuggling them in). But I really wonder of how the economics of that work out.

Of course, the question is whether the turning point can ever be archived. 3D printed firearms and homemade ammunition may end up not mattering at all in a world where properly-made firearms and ammunition are still abundant.

And again, this is assuming chemical primers remain the go-to method of setting off gunpowder charges, but with the existence of electrical and pneumatic priming methods that primacy may be challenged in the future. It depends on how compatible any given priming technology is with future manufacturing technology.

For our discussions, it also assumes that given technology will be sufficiently cheaply and easily available.

? Even effective printable black powder firearms would make their lawmakers shit bricks.

The question is whether would criminals actually resort to it? This is what I have severe doubts about. The components of homemade ammunition is, as you pointed out, already exists and existed for decades. Yet the use of blackpowder ammunition seems to be rare event in gun violence. There is some evidence for this. Which may indicate that

However, all it would take to flip that around would be if someone resurrected the old Gyroget concept and could make the ammo economic to manufacture. Sure, rocket bullets had accuracy issues stemming from inconsistent manufacturing and inherent problems with wind, but their one advantage is that they could be fired from guns that were built like toys.

So your solution to the problem of inadaqvate technological infrastructure is even higher, more advanced technological infrastructure?

You do know one of the big reasons the gyroject failed is because each cartridge was a miniature, solid-state rocket? The design tolerances for that are seriously high, as it would be for creating something that can withstand and direct a continuous explosion. If you realize that, then you realize why the ammunition was ridiculously expensive compared to regular ammunition. The incandescence of home-made ammunition? Logically increased by order of magnitude for miniature rockets.

And that the problems of accuracy stemmed from badly-made rocket-cartridges? Was due to a professional ammunition manufacturer's failures to ensure consistent quality. You see why I have doubts about this being a thing for homebrew guns for gangs?

Yes, rocket bullets allow much simpler and lower-tolerance firearms. Because it shifts the pressure on tolerances and good materials entirely on the ammunition. Yes, it would be easy to make weapons that fire rocket-bullets. As long as you have rocket-bullets. Which are necessarily costlier and more difficult to make than regular bullets.

A spark gap can be fired ten thousand times and the most you would have to do to maintain it is lengthen or replace the electrodes. Its a super simple, super reliable technology, and people use it all the time in potato cannons. Alternatively, another electrical firing method is basically a resistor that explodes when current is passed through it. A bit finicky in comparison, but the technology can set off modern smokeless powder (or even high explosives) and the resistors have other legitimate uses.

My question isn't whether it exists. The question is whether the resulting product is necessarily inferior to legally-made firearms.

Not all firearm designs require standardized ammo, or even use cartridges. I already posted one such example.

My point was that it would result in further lack of reliability and performance. As well as the fact that the problem of different homebrew labs.

If rocket bullets ever became a thing, they could also probably be fired through an oversized bore and the only problem would be the potential for further accuracy reduction.

Rocket bullets are already a thing. The technology was not lost, it is simply ignored and right now not much more than a curiosity among hobbyists. The learn question is whether the technology is really the low-hanging fruit you say it is. After all, this and other methods are not used widely in real firearms and there may be more reasons for that than convention.

[Formless]

My problem is the bolded parts. What is the practical experience?

Elheru Aran already posted on the last page that he's seen people use exactly this method to reload precussion caps in Africa. Why don't you ask him? Or do your own research. Look up Armstrong's mix. It is very well known stuff, used in the earliest precussion cap firearms, and still used in pyrotechnic cap guns and other toys. For instance.

Just because you have never heard of people doing this doesn't make it unknown to the rest of the world.

Furthermore, if it requires a would-be criminal gang to learn handloading to make their guns, as opposed to just buying ready-made cartridges, that too increases cost required for the gang to use firearms as well as risks. While also ensuring (to an extent) that they have inferior firearms.

There will be a point where a sufficiently large criminal organization can buy both the tools and expertise to make proper firearms and ammunition (as opposed to just smuggling them in). But I really wonder of how the economics of that work out.

Of course, the question is whether the turning point can ever be archived. 3D printed firearms and homemade ammunition may end up not mattering at all in a world where properly-made firearms and ammunition are still abundant.

Handloading/reloading is actually already cheaper than buying commercial ammo. The cost is front loaded in that you need the tools, but after you have that you can start making bullets for pennies compared to buying commercially made rounds. And yes, reloaded ammo has been used in crime before, even in the last year. Again, you should do your own research first before asking questions that have known answers. We started this conversation over your claim that controlling access to ammo is a valid alternative to gun control in the worst case scenario where gun manufacturing can be achieved by anyone with a 3d printer. But the reality is that ammunition is no harder to manufacture than the guns themselves (really, the brass is the one thing you can't make yourself). Obviously this won't matter in a country where guns and ammo are already readily available. But that is tangential to the original argument.

For our discussions, it also assumes that given technology will be sufficiently cheaply and easily available.

I don't know about the pneumatic priming method as it has only been tried once in the history of firearms (although its also used in some diesel engines, apparently), but electrical ignition is the go-to method among potato cannon enthusiasts, and their projects are not very expensive at all. Spark gaps are very easy to make, and you can also find them in a lot of cheap lighters used to start propane grills and the like. Seriously, there is no need for speculation here, the most simple form of electrical priming is dirt cheap and can be made by anyone with access to 9 volt batteries, wire, and extremely simple circuitry. There are no assumptions here, this and other electrical ignition methods are downright crude in application. And they work.

The question is whether would criminals actually resort to it? This is what I have severe doubts about. The components of homemade ammunition is, as you pointed out, already exists and existed for decades. Yet the use of blackpowder ammunition seems to be rare event in gun violence. There is some evidence for this.

Who knows? That's a complex question of criminology that goes beyond the scope of this thread, I feel. But homemade guns are not unknown among criminals and even terrorist groups, so they might or they might not.

So your solution to the problem of inadaqvate technological infrastructure is even higher, more advanced technological infrastructure?

Rocket bullets aren't actually more advanced technology, it would be more accurate to say that they are underdeveloped compared to traditional ammunition. When you look at early metallic cartridges and compare them to modern cartridges, it isn't obvious to the naked eye, but there is a ton of subtle engineering details that had to be worked out out over decades of development. The .22 LR cartridge is a good case study because it preserves a lot of obsolete techniques, like rimfire priming and use of a heeled bullet. It becomes even more obvious when you look at a schematic for a given round just how much thought is put into things like the case thickness, the bullet geometry, how much the cartridge has to neck down to optimize pressure, and other internal ballistic considerations that most people don't know about. It took hundreds of years just to invent the skirted bullet, and that changed everything with regards to firearms. Given time, similar breakthroughs could be made with alternative projectile designs.

In fact, there are people still working on the concept in various forms. It has never been entirely abandoned.

You do know one of the big reasons the gyroject failed is because each cartridge was a miniature, solid-state rocket?

Yes.

The design tolerances for that are seriously high, as it would be for creating something that can withstand and direct a continuous explosion. If you realize that, then you realize why the ammunition was ridiculously expensive compared to regular ammunition.

[editors note: I deal with the middle statements elsewhere]

Yes, rocket bullets allow much simpler and lower-tolerance firearms. Because it shifts the pressure on tolerances and good materials entirely on the ammunition. Yes, it would be easy to make weapons that fire rocket-bullets. As long as you have rocket-bullets. Which are necessarily costlier and more difficult to make than regular bullets.

That's actually something of a mistake everyone makes concerning the Gyroget and its failure. A big part of the price wasn't the precision needed to make them because almost all ammo out there requires precision to make the brass. The problem was that literally every single gyroget bullet ever made had its thrusters drilled out by hand. Not by machine. Everything handmade costs more because you are paying for someone's labor. If they were made by machine, then there is no doubt they could be made precisely, more cheaply, and to unform quality standards. That would take care of the reliability issues and the cost issue in one fell swoop. But the guys who made Gyroget got screwed by a series of legal problems before they could get proper machining, some of them forseeable and some of them impossible to predict. First they made the mistake of making the guns smoothbore (because they could) and they were quickly forced to add token rifling to the guns to stay compliant with US law. Then the US changed the law so that weapons with a bore over 12mm were considered Destructive Devices (unless they were shotguns), and the original grogets were 13mm. So they had to change everything to make 12mm rockets and guns. And lastly, the guns themselves were made a bit too much like toys-- those ported barrels could let in dirt, and the lack of a detachable magazine was a serious drawback in the experience of those few soldiers who carried them in Vietnam. Basically, it was a good concept with a flawed execution. But they weren't the first to consider the idea: that honor actually goes to the Japanese, while the guys behind gyroget were inspired by work done by the germans.

And that the problems of accuracy stemmed from badly-made rocket-cartridges? Was due to a professional ammunition manufacturer's failures to ensure consistent quality. You see why I have doubts about this being a thing for homebrew guns for gangs?

This is not taking into account that the whole discussion is framed by a speculative paradigm shift in future manufacturing technology. Future gangs or terrorist groups may not have those problems. And I admit, because this is speculative I don't claim that this will ever come to fruition, let alone that it is a "low hanging fruit". But that wasn't the point: the point was, when solutions to problems with today's technology occur, it forces existing institutions like the law to adapt or be rendered irrelevant. Like the internet itself does with regards to copyright enforcement.

My question isn't whether it exists. The question is whether the resulting product is necessarily inferior to legally-made firearms.

It isn't. The military has used electronic ignition in artillery for a long time, using iirc the exploding resistor method, and the only reason it hasn't made its way into small arms isn't for lack of experimentation so much as a lack of economic incentive to switch from common chemical primers. They know the technology works, but when they already have a very reliable alternative that has been used for a century and a half why would they switch? The military is fundamentally conservative that way. Indeed, that's why I started this by talking about Armstrong's Mixture as an alternative primer that can be made by anyone. Electrical ignition is the homebrewer's alternative if they think Armstrong's mixture is too volatile.

[Feil]

Minor point, the article specifies the price of the necessary 3D printer as a "few thousand dollars," and that it would require a "machinist of average skill." Down a bit from where it was the last time OMG DOWNLOADABLE GUNS did their rounds of the internet a few years ago (since which time apparently everybody's forgotten that it's been old news for years)... but still considerably more expensive than just buying several real guns, unless you live in Japan or something.

[houser2112]

Your best bet is to instead require licensing to produce weapons with said technology and too at a firmware level restrict 3d printers from making functional weapons unless the user registers their device with a licensing body. Even this is likely to just be ineffective busy work but it does add an extra charge that can be made to stick if you bust somebody planning a crime with 3d printed weapons.

I think it's not likely, but certain that it would be ineffective busywork, mostly good for extra charges tacked on as you say. A software solution is simply not going to work for people who are properly motivated to circumvent it. Either a firmware patch and/or "clean" weapon files will become available very soon to obviate any measures taken to prevent manufacture.

[Jub]

I think it's not likely, but certain that it would be ineffective busywork, mostly good for extra charges tacked on as you say. A software solution is simply not going to work for people who are properly motivated to circumvent it. Either a firmware patch and/or "clean" weapon files will become available very soon to obviate any measures taken to prevent manufacture.

Oh yeah, I 100% agree. The only case where it even could work is if we get to a stage where even a relatively cheap 3d printer has AI capable of upholding 3d printer related laws against the wishes of the printer's owner. I don't see this as likely unless 3d printers become larger and shared among the community rather than individually owned.

[houser2112]

I think it's not likely, but certain that it would be ineffective busywork, mostly good for extra charges tacked on as you say. A software solution is simply not going to work for people who are properly motivated to circumvent it. Either a firmware patch and/or "clean" weapon files will become available very soon to obviate any measures taken to prevent manufacture.

Oh yeah, I 100% agree. The only case where it even could work is if we get to a stage where even a relatively cheap 3d printer has AI capable of upholding 3d printer related laws against the wishes of the printer's owner. I don't see this as likely unless 3d printers become larger and shared among the community rather than individually owned.

But again, "AI" is just software, and therefore theoretically capable of being bypassed. Firmware (AI) can be patched. Files can be made clean ("This is totally not a weapon, Mr. Printer"). A client printer could be fooled into thinking it's talking to a server that has oversight over what you use it for.

Regarding your point about size, can you think of any other product or technology that evolved to get bigger just because? I can't. Tech evolves from primitive to complex, from big to small, and from expensive to cheap. It may remain stagnant along one of those axes while it evolves along the others, but never backwards.

[Jub]

But again, "AI" is just software, and therefore theoretically capable of being bypassed. Firmware (AI) can be patched. Files can be made clean ("This is totally not a weapon, Mr. Printer"). A client printer could be fooled into thinking it's talking to a server that has oversight over what you use it for.

There's no reason that an AI couldn't be firmware and with beefy enough encryption spoofing the AI's digital signature might be next to impossible.

Regarding your point about size, can you think of any other product or technology that evolved to get bigger just because? I can't. Tech evolves from primitive to complex, from big to small, and from expensive to cheap. It may remain stagnant along one of those axes while it evolves along the others, but never backwards.

You'd want larger 3d printers to make larger objects. A larger 3d printer might also have multiple heads for either faster printing or printing with different materials. You could even have a 3d printer with additional machine tools or manipulators to both print and assemble parts. Such a device could grow large and expensive enough that it's more feasible as a community resource than an individual's tool with all the oversight that goes with that.

[houser2112]

There's no reason that an AI couldn't be firmware and with beefy enough encryption spoofing the AI's digital signature might be next to impossible.

Perhaps. Hackers are very good, though. I wouldn't want to count on them not figuring things out.

Regarding your point about size, can you think of any other product or technology that evolved to get bigger just because? I can't. Tech evolves from primitive to complex, from big to small, and from expensive to cheap. It may remain stagnant along one of those axes while it evolves along the others, but never backwards.

You'd want larger 3d printers to make larger objects. A larger 3d printer might also have multiple heads for either faster printing or printing with different materials. You could even have a 3d printer with additional machine tools or manipulators to both print and assemble parts. Such a device could grow large and expensive enough that it's more feasible as a community resource than an individual's tool with all the oversight that goes with that.

What you're talking about is an example of not only evolving in complexity, but to the point where it's arguably a different class of device entirely.

[Jub]

Perhaps. Hackers are very good, though. I wouldn't want to count on them not figuring things out.

I think you're underestimating how hard it would be to bridge the gap between 128-bit encryption and say, 512-bit encryption or even 1,024-bit encryption.

What you're talking about is an example of not only evolving in complexity, but to the point where it's arguably a different class of device entirely.

Yeah, and this whole thing came out of you replying to an offhand comment I made about legislating and enforcing a law that won't have any impact on 3d printed guns. The only way the idea could work is with this extreme level of protection and extrapolation of 3d printing technology towards larger more complex devices to the point where home models that would lack this protection are uncommon or even completely obsolete.

TLDR; Yes, even the best attempts to regulate what comes out of a 3d printer will fail if private devices without sophisticated firmware (or even hardware) AIs using high-level encryption and hardware design that does not allow for a simply bypassing of this check enforcing laws about what can be created with them.

[LaCroix]

How would you even "regulate" gun files - all you need to do is print the parts seperately...

A tube, a rod with holes and cutout, a spring, etc. - how should the AI detect that this is potentially part of a gun and prevent you printing it without refusing to print bugger all? If you just make the files so that you add stuff (maybe even some that you have to manually modify) to change the shape will confuse any AI.

Rifled barrel - just print a matching screw insert and declare the file to be a rotating piston. (You could even cap the barrel at one end, and saw off later to size). Same for any part - you can hide a lot of stuff in seemingly harmless objects, especially if you design stuff to mask the part (eg. the bolt as the centerpiece of a drone frame, with the necessary machined surfaces doubling as attachment parts, from the top of my mind.)

[Jub]

How would you even "regulate" gun files - all you need to do is print the parts seperately...

A tube, a rod with holes and cutout, a spring, etc. - how should the AI detect that this is potentially part of a gun and prevent you printing it without refusing to print bugger all? If you just make the files so that you add stuff (maybe even some that you have to manually modify) to change the shape will confuse any AI.

Rifled barrel - just print a matching screw insert and declare the file to be a rotating piston. (You could even cap the barrel at one end, and saw off later to size). Same for any part - you can hide a lot of stuff in seemingly harmless objects, especially if you design stuff to mask the part (eg. the bolt as the centerpiece of a drone frame, with the necessary machined surfaces doubling as attachment parts, from the top of my mind.)

Yeah, you could totally do all of that. The software would likely scan known firearms blueprints and do a best fit extrapolation of what it's being asked to print. It won't be perfect, or even that close, but it's as close as we're likely to get unless we assume human level intelligence from our AI.