Slashdot Mirror
3D Printed Gun Maker Cody Wilson Defends Open Source Freedom
Lucas123 (935744) writes "Cody Wilson, the 26-year-old former law school student who published plans for printing 3D guns online, disputed claims by universities and government agencies that his thermoplastic gun design is unsafe. Wilson claims the agencies that tested the guns did not build them to spec. In a Q&A with Computerworld, he also addressed why he's continuing to press regulatory agencies to allow him to offer the plans again for upload after being ordered to take them down, saying it's less about the Second Amendment and more about the implications of open source and the digital age. "If you want to talk about rights, what does it mean to respect a civil liberty or civil right? Well, it means you understand there are social costs in having that right; that's why it deserves protection in the first place," he said. Wilson is also planning to release other gun-related project, though not necessarily a CAD design."
A first gen product using revolutionary technology and people are whining about it being unsafe? It's like complaining that the Model T didn't have airbags.
I think they are missing the point entirely. 3D printing will only become more sophisticated, using stronger materials and will be faster. People will be able to manufacture devices that are currently controlled or are so specialized that it hasn't occurred to the Feds to control them.
This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less momentous than VHS and later MP3s.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Can the social costs outweigh the right or privilege? Do other countries where there is broad acceptance of restrictions on gun ownership, such as the UK, have any right 'not to hear' this free information?
Has any analysis been done as to the feasibility of the oppressed in obtaining suitable 3d printers and the 'correct' material for printing, then using these weapons to defeat their oppressor versus the ability of criminals to do likewise and use the weapons in the pursuit of their crimes?
This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* - i.e. an object designed to kill. This is not about open source, or anything else that Cody Wilson claims; it's about the *result* of his actions id these his designs are used to proliferate more *weapons*. America already experiences 33-35,000 gun deaths every year. America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide - after Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria.Isn't that enough? Do we want to make guns even easier to obtain?
Project forward ten years, when 3D printers are far less expensive, and gun designs have been perfected. It's trivial to consider the new kinds of concealable (and undetectable) weapons that could be made via 3D printers.
Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.
It's sickening to hear pro-gun people talk about "freedom" and "self-defense", when they seem not one bit to care about the thousands killed by guns, and ironically attempt to make a self-defense argument for their position when it's the nearly unabated spread of weapons in America enabled by the terrorist NRA leadership; their Congressional whores; and, their gun-manufacturing overlords.
If Cody sends out one more 3D plan, jail him for 10 years! People who want to be free of gun deaths have rights, too!
Yeah, because a little killing is necessary, like a little eating.
Your argument by metaphor totally lacks any crucial flaws that reflect a complete lack of understanding. Good job.
Yeah, because a little killing is necessary, like a little eating.
Your argument by metaphor totally lacks any crucial flaws that reflect a complete lack of understanding. Good job.
Thomas Jefferson agrees it is necessary::
And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
What you THINK Jefferson meant doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's quite clear from the entire quotation - in context, that he wasn't talking about guns. http://www.monticello.org/site...
If everyone has 3d printer at home and the material and the design of making guns and bullets, what'd be the cost of banning guns? Wouldn't that also be too great?
The problem with 3D printing is that it makes object creation too easy, and weapons are one of the first types of objects people think of creating. "Gun control" is a concept that's been worked on for many years, and this goes right in the face of it. There's many communities where guns are completely banned, or have to cross an area that destroys the ability to fire. This is why we need some interrupt somewhere to say "That's something that isn't allowed here!" in all 3D printer designs.
I am not entirely sure what the poster means by "Open Source Freedom." I'm sure there's a serious discussion to be had there, but my first reaction was "Freedom is Not Free (as in beer)."
Second Amendment? This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. And we're going to let this happen just because the info is about guns? Fuck that. Submissiveness will destroy us.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What you THINK Jefferson meant doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's quite clear from the entire quotation - in context, that he wasn't talking about guns.
http://www.monticello.org/site...
Riiight.
"Let them take arms" isn't referring, to, well, arms. Otherwise known as guns. Sure it isn't. I mean, really, it's got to be referring to people ripping the upper limbs off others and brandishing said arms. One wonders if they should hold such arms by the hand end or by the shoulder end. And if they should return any watches, rings, bracelets or other jewelry to the original owners of those arms. I mean, the original owners had their arms taken from them, so they wouldn't have a use for any such items any more.
ROTFLMAO.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Look people, this is NOT a 2A issue, this is a 1A issue. When does censorship stop? Why can't gun plans be published?
What if after some future election it became illegal to publish plans for IUD contra-ceptives without a licence after some person posts plans for a 3D printed one. Then for a research physician to get published in a medical journal he'd need permission from the government. How about that? How is that different?
How would you feel about needing to obtain a goverenemt license to publish anything about crytographic code? Where would that stop? Could you teach your kids how to make a Ceasar cipher, or would you go to jail for that under a national security gag-order.
He is publishing plans. This is a 1A issue.
I'll supply the parts list.
1 drill press. .25 ID black pipe.
.25 ID black pipe cap.
.25 rimfire round.
.25 chamber reamer. (optional)
1 vice, mounted in the drill press.
1
1
1 roofing nail.
1 drill to match the roofing nail diameter.
1
1
1 hammer.
Maybe someone else will post how to put it together, though if you can't figure it out you might want to stop. To make a legal gun (not an 'other gun') you should add a handle, trigger, mechanical hammer and safety.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How is it "quite clear"? He clearly does say to let the people have weapons, and attempt to depose a tyrant, even if they are wrong about the tyrant.
I just read the page you referenced, and don't see the argument you are attempting to make.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Somehow this story will probably get more comments than something about net neutrality or Edward Snowden. Nevermind any new technology story. Seems dice has finally found a way to increase readership: get on the NRA's radar.
Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.
Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.
Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.
All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.
I believe the confusion here is over the interpretation of "Let them take arms", which you seem to interpret as "let the government disarm people". Whereas, I, and I believe GP, thought "them" refered to the people, as in "let the people take arms". (notice "take arms" or "take up arms" is a common phrase for engaging in fighting)
That makes more sense to me in context... as he seems to be extolling the virtue of occasional civil war.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
One company has already created a 3d 1911 model out of metal http://www.solidconcepts.com/news-releases/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-manufactured-solid-concepts/
Gun regulations set the boundaries for gun ownership. 3d printed or not is irrelevant. If you're allowed to own an unregistered gun then 3d printing is not the problem you need to solve. Japan has already arrested someone for owning printed guns. Why ? Because unregistered guns are illegal there. Problem solved. 3d printed versions of guns are allways going to be lousy alternatives to anything an established factory can make. Here and now, if 3d printed guns had been used in any of the recent school shootings, the bodycount would have been somewhere between 1 and zero as they're basically one shot zip guns that use low power ammo and have a high probability of blowing the fingers off your hand if you're stupid enough to try firing one. The real danger of 3d printed guns at this time is the possibility that curious kids will download the plans, print one, then have one blow up on them as they try to shoot cans in a parking lot. When I was a kid, I made Ninja stars out of electrical panel disks I got from the hardware store, nothing bad happened, but it could have. 5 years from now when home 3d printing has evolved, high res metal printers will still cost the price of a small car or the equivalent tools in a machine shop, and home printing will still be plastic, rubber or wax used to make various plastic parts or knick knacks.
The second amendment was written by people who had just violently expelled a tyrannical government. The only plausible explanation is that they intended for the "militia", meaning all able bodied males, to be able to violently expel the government they were creating when it turned tyrannical.
I don't understand why Wilson doesn't off-shore a server and then publish what he wants.
He said, "Let them take arms." Was he talking about Bohemian earspoons?
Mr. Wilson is a anarchist, gun nut, anti-government, drug addicted madman. He doesn't believe in the law, the Constitution, or any form of modern society. He wants pure anarchy and sees 3D printing as a way to enable that.
If you are passionate about guns, read up about Wilson's history and his viewpoints. Once you dig past the gun issues you'll see that he is a supremely depraved individual. Don't think this guy is one of your champions -- he's deranged.
how the fuck do you offer something for upload?
The hidden debates are several in number. First there is no sane argument of the right of Americans to own guns. We are more than entitled to own guns. "To bear arms" means to carry guns at all times, everywhere, by all adults. But even that is not up for debate as it is the prime law of the United States that we all, always have the right to carry guns. The right to use deadly force is the real issue. And America is all messed up on that part of the issue. After all our forefathers did not consider carrying guns as if they were jewelry. The gun exists to stop attacks by beast or by man. Florida is so screwed up on that kind of thing that we have one man who is serving a very long sentence for firing a harmless, warning shot to warn an intruder to stop the attacks upon his wife and daughter. Florida also had a witch trial in which Mr. Zimmerman went to trial despite no reason at all to arrest or put him on trial. Nobody wishes to confront what really occurred. In Florida we now have a strong right to self defense. If it happens that no witnesses exist and a fatal shot takes place the real fact is that Mr. Zimmerman had no requirement to talk to the police at all. Without strong evidence the police had no right to detain or question Mr. Zimmerman. The prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman was political. He was not put on trial by a local prosecutor as they refused to do so. The investigating police refused to make the arrest until the governor got involved. Now we get down to the grit of the issue. Some groups feel that their family members are more likely to commit crimes against others and they do not want people to be able to defend themselves. Said straight out crime brings a lot of cash into ghetto communities. And we have segments of society that want crime to persist. Think about it. Cops, the prison system, judges and lawyers would all be hurting if crime ceased to exist. Is it any wonder that we have prison systems that make criminals worse than they were before they were caught?
have you ever read this?
Schenck v. United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
I do not think it means what you think it means.
This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* - i.e. an object designed to kill.
There's enough crap in my local hardware store, home center, paint store, gas station, hobby store, art store, and baking section and health and beauty section of my local super market where I could easily do more damage than one can do with a 15 round clip.
It is VERY easy to make a weapon and EXTREMELY easy to make one so inconspicuous that no one pays attention until many people die - see Boston bombers for a recent example.
And what about lasers? What happens when someone builds a back pack for energy for a high powered laser (or filled their pickup truck) to blast lasers and melt people? Or use a laser pointer and take out the pilots of a jumbo jet?
Any reasonably creative sicko can make gun violence look like a minor incident.
So, while we are fixated on the tools of sick people, we are doing nothing to solve the actual root of the problem; which means we will be arguing about the wrong question for a long time.
Let's ask WHY these sickos feel the need to do violence? And HOW to eliminate it?
This is just someone who wants attention. Guns with plastic barrels are junk, worse even than low-end Saturday Night Specials. You can get a cheap gun for under $100 in the US. (Yes, the Raven is a crappy gun, but it's still better than anything made on an extruder-type 3D printer.)
This is not the cutting edge of weapons design. Guns with aimbots. are the cutting edge. Right now, they're expensive, around $10K, but they will get cheaper.
The moment I read this, I realized it wasn't what they said. Obviously, they KNOW the "Liberator" is safe. So why lie? They were trying to scare others from doing this themselves.
Cranky educator.
They're restricting the distribution of the information needed to make 3-D printed guns. In the USA you can manufacture a gun without permission as long as you are not otherwise prohibited from owning the firearm you are constructing. But thanks for missing the point.
For stating that the NRA leadership is "terrorist", and that Cody Wilson should be jailed merely for creating and distributing certain schematics for 3D printers, you should be moderated down to minus one.
Then you should be killed.
We should ban these murder factory machines. No one needs a 30 caliber clip in half a second. The United States is a blood bath of murder and violence because of these violent murder weapons that kill thousands of people a day. The NRA sponsors these men's fetish for violent massacre tools. These same men have a small penis and can't read or write.
The tyrant in question is the one across the ocean whom they had just overthrown. Repelling invading forces are the reason the militia is guaranteed a right to bear arms, NOT against our own government.
We have many ways to change the government built into the system and they should be used before treason.
Mod Parent Up
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Nah, the real reason is the NRA and other vested-interests don't want people to be able to copy their guns. What's the use of lobbying for the gun industry when the feeding trough is about be taken away.
There are two ways to look at this, if open source firearms become commonplace, then gun-controls in every country out there become useless, thus making the world a more dangerous place and a free for all for gun manufacturers. The trade off is that if the gun manufacturers cane get regulations in place so that only they can produce weapons so they are safe (eg smart guns, and such) then they remain in business.
Opensource firearms is just the next generation of the anarchists handbook. Simply mentioning it, looking it up, or downloading it, probably lands you on a FBI watch list.
The way to make and keep control over firearms is through the ammunition supply. You can't 3D print ammo. There is no way for a 3D printer to extrude explosives without igniting it. The 3D guns may be made of plastic but they must contain metal parts simply to fire the ammo loaded into it. Plastic is never dense or sharp enough to act as a firing pin.
But I digress, 3D printing will affect everything currently made of plastic, which means everything from your polycarbonite drinking glass, to your computer keyboard, to replacement limbs.
You're not going to 3D print an iPad but you may eventually be able to print the equivalent of LEGO and build structurally solid things out of it (Perhaps the first 3D printed skyscraper, should 3D printing be able to print Roman Concrete)
And while I respect TJ and the other drafters of the constitution, this was a mistake that didn't account for how badly revolution can go for tyranny instead. Revolution netted us Stalin, Mao, Gaddafi, the Islamic Republic, Bonaparte, and lots of other shitty dictators. It was a novel idea, but it turned out under, more pragmatic inspection, to be a bad idea.
You obviously did not read the passage that ebusinessmedia1 linked to.
Go read it, notice it mentions a rebellion after the revolution, and how it mattes that it was contained to only one state.
Then come back and rewrite your argument.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
"Yet?" If anyone says this is a slippery slope and and some day we'll regret it, I'd have to flame 'em for having their tense wrong.
Try printing a "circumvention device" or merely "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" a model for one, and then tell the judge in the DMCA case, that it's allowed because it's not a gun.
I bet with a little research, you could find decades or possibly even a century or two, of precedent for all sorts of restrictions on things that are far more innocuous than guns, and 3d printers are going to run into much of that stuff. Guns are really only a special case here, because we have an amendment that specifically prohibits the government from .. uh .. well, what they're not allowed to do is apparently rather debated, but one thing we all agree on, is that amendment really does use the word "arms." And we don't have any constitution-level law at all, that mentions the words "computer programs." ;-)
You should expect interference of some kind, whenever there's any sort of advance in cheap anonymous unskilled creation. That's just how things work, always. I seriously don't know how anyone could possibly think we're only talking about the future of guns. Guns are so nothing within the overall economy.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
no text here
No, the tyrant to which Jefferson was referring was what our government could become if we aren't careful.
Way to hate on the D's when it is mostly bible thumping redneck Republicans that are doing all the banning. Maybe you could point me to a predominately Democratic county that is "dry". I can show you tons of predominantly Republican ones that are and this is just on one subject. If you wanna go blow for blow, it'll take all day but I am certain my nosey-body-republicans can absolutely swamp your freedumb-hating-democrats any day every day.
I bet that took you all of 30 seconds to come up with. I'm convinced! When do we march?
It isn't about penis at all. We agree. It's about being scared and no man wants to say he's scared.
Only not nearly as smart. This guy is the kind of person you go back in time to stop, in order to prevent some future catastrophe.
Another gmhowell 1 line fart of a reply!