I have been following 3D printing for a while now just out of curiosity. But there is a synergy with the open-source movement that I find disturbing. Perhaps there are things we should not be creating.
Pundits claim that 3D printing will "democratize production" by allowing individuals and small companies to create objects that used to require elaborate machinery and skilled craftsmen to fabricate. Even creating something as simple as a bowl used to require either a potter's wheel or a lathe, and some measure of training in their use.
Not so with the 3D printer. Simply input a description of the object from a CAD file, and the printer will build it up. Creating complex undercuts and interior structures is no more difficult than fabricating a cube. The machine handles all the complexity.
With the 3D printer now priced within reach of ordinary individuals (and getting cheaper), there is a trend within the open-source community to make the CAD files of their designs as well as those resulting from 3D scans of various objects freely available to the world at large. On the whole, that is a good thing. It opens many possibilities for hobbyists and professionals alike to create unique and interesting objects.
But it seems to me this trend is going too far with the activity around the 3D-printed gun, one of which was test-fired the other day.
OK, the entire gun is not able to be made out of the plastics that many 3D printers use. So, you cannot yet fabricate an entire working weapon in your basement. But that is likely to be a temporary situation as new materials and methods become available.
And, no, the 3D printer will not be able to make ammunition, either. Or at least not the gunpowder (or equivalent).
But that is not really the point. Once the plans for a working weapon are out there they cannot be retrieved. And it cannot be controlled. That gun design falls into the hands of anyone who wants it.
Some may say that this is a good thing, that oppressed peoples will be able to create weapons that allow them to rise up against tyranny and secure their freedom. I say that the most-likely folks to create such weapons are those who are interested only in personal power and wealth.
This specific debate, though, is only one instance of a greater question. Are there things we should not be creating? If so, how will you know? Or is creation inevitable once the idea has arisen? And if you believe that someone will create it if you don't, does that make it alright to proceed?
Where do you draw the line and say that this is something that you will not create?
Joe Stanganelli 1/11/2013 3:45:36 PM User Rank Program Manager
Re: The only solution to evil
Re: "I've heard them called "sporting rifles." What sport?" There are people who simply use them for the fun of taking them out to the desert or the woods for target practice. When I worked in Las Vegas, a friend of mine in the office invited me to go shoot AK-47s in the desert with him one weekend. It's a thing to do. Some people go skydiving, some people collect stamps...some people shoot stuff (rather a more real-life version of first-person shooter video games).
(In case you're wondering, I declined because I had injured my ears recently at the time, and determined that it would be far too loud an activity for me, even with ear protection. My friend then took a girl he was dating at the time. She lost her hearing for a couple of days. Looks like (sounds like? heh) I made a good decision.)
Joe Stanganelli 1/11/2013 3:43:55 PM User Rank Program Manager
Re: My thoughts on why we don't regulate
Re: "And for those "we'd be better off if more people had guns" people, there were 35% fewer legal self-defense killings in 2011 than in 2001, with 40 million more guns in the US now than in 2001 (according to the NRA). 40 million more guns = same number of gun murders and 34% fewer self-defense killings."
FWIW, I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant statistic -- at least, with no additional context. Being armed for self-defense is also (and primarily) a prophylactic measure. People who want weapons purely for self-defense don't actively WANT to kill.
The statistic also ignores non-fatal self-defense woundings.
Not sure what all this does mean, but I felt that the context is important.
duanebenson 12/24/2012 1:18:42 PM User Rank Blogger
My thoughts on why we don't regulate
First, re: "scores of knife attacks on schoolchildren"
You can be killed via a lot of different methods. Military assault weapons with large clips just make it easier to kill more people faster. Knives can have the purpose of cutting food. Military assault weapons with large clips have no purpose other than killing people. None.
Now, to my thoughts on why this country doesn't seem to do much to control guns. I do think there are two major factors at work in the US relating to gun control. First, this country has a culture of gun ownership.
There is the constitution. It can be interpreted differently and some people may think it's out of date, some not. The fact is, though that the constitution was written with a founding principle that, while necessary, governments can only be trusted to a certain extent. That's why we have three branches of our federal government and each answer to the other in some respect. That's why we have so many elected officials elected on different timelines.
For the first half of this country's existence, personal ownership of firearms was a necessity for large swaths of the land. They were needed for food and both home and national defense in areas far from governmental protection. Those reasons may largely not be valid anymore, but we are left with a very strong tradition.
The second is a matter of scale. I don't want to belittle the suffering of those involved in the recent tragedies - I can't even imagine the pain of losing a young child to violence. It is unimaginable horrific. I'm just offering up an opinion on the nation's mindset.
In terms of scale, there were 2,512,873 deaths in the U.S. in 2011 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 6, page 39).
Motor vehicle accidents lead to 34,677 deaths, or 1.3% of the total deaths. There were 38,285 deaths due to intentional self-harm (suicide), with 19,766 of those being by firearm. You could certainly argue that a number of those firearm suicides would have been unsuccessful if tried by other means, but that's the number. Drug induced deaths: 40,239. Alcohol induced deaths: 26,256. All non-transport accidents: 85,502
There were 15,953 homicides in total in 2011, or 0.6% of all deaths. Of those homicides, 11,101 (0.44% of total) were caused by firearm. One could, again, argue that some of those homicides would still have happened even without guns. Interestingly, in 2001, there were 20,308 homicides - that's a significant drop in ten years - but the number caused by firearms is nearly identical at 11,348 (0.47% of total).
And for those "we'd be better off if more people had guns" people, there were 35% fewer legal self-defense killings in 2011 than in 2001, with 40 million more guns in the US now than in 2001 (according to the NRA). 40 million more guns = same number of gun murders and 34% fewer self-defense killings.
I'm surmising with all of that depressing data that, along with the country's historical culture of gun ownership, our legislators tend to focus on other areas more. Three times as many motor vehicle deaths, close to four times as many suicides, six times as many drug and alcohol deaths.
Again, I am not diminishing the pain and suffering of those effected by recent events, nor am I trying to justify ownership of assault weapons (I can't and won't); just trying to offer up a possible theory on why this country doesn't seem to put much effort into gun control.
duanebenson 12/24/2012 11:47:15 AM User Rank Blogger
Re: The only solution to evil
Al - I agree with much of what you have to say. If you own a gun and are a law-abiding citizen, being well trained is the responsible way to be a gun owner. And there are cases where having armed responsible and well-trained people around may have helped.
The problem that I have isn't with responsible, law-abiding citizens owning weapons that fit their desired task. It's that I can't in my wildest imagination see the justification in owning a military assault rifle with a 30 round clip. It's not a hunting rifle. If it takes you more than three shots to bring down a deer or elk, you probably shouldn't be hunting. It's a horrible home defense weapon - unless your goal is to shoot through four walls and hit someone down the street from you.
I've heard them called "sporting rifles." What sport? Target shooting guns have heavier barrels and don't need large ammo clips. These assault weapons are designed for the military to be used for killing people. There is no way to spin it any other way that isn't pure fantasy.
Joe Stanganelli 12/24/2012 1:15:40 AM User Rank Program Manager
Re: Regulation? Perhaps
If the meaning of the Constitution could change at the drop of a hat based on the whims of the day, then the amendment mechanism -- as well as the entire legislative branch -- would be meaningless.
"The whole point of a Constitution is so that it is NOT interpreted differently as time passes and society changes. "
Is that what they teach in law school Joe?
If so -- I think we've just stumbled on the core problem :-)
When I channel the Founding Fathers (every Thursday at 10:00PM CDT), they tell me that OF COURSE they expected the constitution to be interpreted -- continuously. Not "ammended" -- interpreted. That'w why they spent all that time worrying about "checks and balances," "judicial review" and studying Rousseau, Hobbes and the Romans.
When I talked to Al Hamilton last Thursday, he said "What in the HELL is WRONG wtih you people!!!.
Didier_Juges 12/23/2012 6:52:48 AM User Rank Blogger
Re: Regulation? Perhaps
Joe,
"The whole point of a Constitution is so that it is NOT interpreted differently as time passes and society changes" I believe this is referred to as the originalist point of view. It is not the only view one can have of the Constitution, and the framers, probably purposefully, did not indicate how the Constitution should be interpreted in the future. Constructionists believe the Constitution is a living document. The fact that the Constitution itself is written in fairly general terms implies that it was meant to be interpreted, at least to some degree. I understand that opens the door to judicial activism which has its own problems. I am a moderate person, so my personal opinion lies somewhere between the two. I believe the original meaning is the most important thing in the Constitution rather than the strict interpretation of the words in it, but I also believe that when the Constitution fails to provide guidance in areas that the framers could not have imagined or anticipated, that careful steps should be taken to correct this.
However, I am glad to see that we agree that the second amendment does not grant right to just any type of weapon and that Congress has the power to regulate that. It is also established that the second amendment itself, like any part of the Constitution is susceptible of interpretation (which is what the Supreme Court does) and susceptible to revision through further amendment, even though that is probably not necessary to provide stronger gun control laws.
Of course, that has nothing to do directly with the other factors involved in gun death, which are possibly part of the problem, like violent video games, advertising and sensationalism, and the fascination this country has with guns, blood and violence in general. Not sure what to do about those, but I would like the people who can find such good reasons why assault weapons should remain freely available to also be creative and propose effective solutions to gun violence. And no, putting a cop in every school is not what I call a solution, even though it may be a necessary intermediate step.
Joe Stanganelli 12/23/2012 1:21:30 AM User Rank Program Manager
Re: Regulation? Perhaps
The whole point of a Constitution is so that it is NOT interpreted differently as time passes and society changes. That is why the mechanism to amend exists (and why it takes so much to amend the Constitution). The forefathers recognized the wisdom of the adage that men are best governed by the rule of law rather than the ever-changing whims of other men.
The nuclear weapons counteranalogy is tired, and fails to recognize the actual realities of the 2nd Amendment and that it does not, in fact, cover all uses and possessions of all firearms in all situations. The 2nd Amendment is not a bar on any form of arms control, and never has been.
To save this item to your list of favorite Microcontroller Central content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
