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.
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...
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!”
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Mod Parent Up
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
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, the tyrant to which Jefferson was referring was what our government could become if we aren't careful.
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.