Cabe, You bring up a very good point about regulation. It seems as though if all eyes are on a subject, say drugs, then the offenders become more active in trying to beat the system. So, if there is no regulation (attention), then maybe the offenders will not attempt to use 3D printers for wrong doings. It may just work.
Yes, Boston will probably result in more rules. But you have to then wonder, since we now know that the FBI provided the bomb used in the 1993 WTC crime. The paid informer, Emad Salem taped the conversation where the FBI admited their involvement. So we can expect more attacks whenever there is a push for more regulation.
Government should not regulate weapons or be involved. Not only is the genie already out of the bottle, but government is the main reason weapons are necessary in the first place. If any individual does not have the right to make weapons, then who does? Can't be the government because government only acts as an agent for individuals, and has no authority of its own. To attempt to make illegal what is so easily done, is just douible speak. It makes no sense, and it makes individuals subordinate to government, which is backwards in a democratic republic.
It's not a good thing when a government wins an arms race against the private sector it's supposed to "serve". It's also not good when laws punish the law-abiding more than the lawless. I'm having difficulty trying to think of a gun "restriction" that didn't further skew both of those imbalances.
If the social contract otherwise known as the U.S. Constitutiion were to ever become binding between its clients again, we'd find that most "laws" restricting access to guns are a violation against that contract.
Yes, there are consequences to liberty, but the consequences of not having it have been far more dire for millions of people before us.
"The permissive liberal is a myth. They will be willing to chase this through the Internet and cut through every single civil liberty they can in the name of 'safety.'" Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed
There are laws that cover the manufacturing of firearms; even un-serialized ones built by hobbyists at home. Also frames have been made from injection molded plastic for a long time now. This issue really has nothing to do with guns. It is about what restrictions the can be put on computer data, and how far the government is able to go to control the data you access.
Cabe, My point exactly. Individuals who are committed to the life of crime will use surrounding/availabe resources for destruction. Its unfortunate that a machine designed to unleash creativity and allow imaginative freedom to make wonderful products may fall under government regulation scrutiny. What a sad day in the Maker community when the event happens.
Nothing will stop the production of weapons. I can whittle a knife out of wood or plastic. I could pound a pipe down, sharpen the now flat edge, and make a sword. I could just take the pipe as use it as a club. The possibilities are endless.
What I want to know, how can the average person profit from this worrying trend? Sell parts. Start a regulatory business. etc
bronorb, I agree the article Cabe wrote is a good one. Based on the conversations this topic of 3D printing guns is quite controversial. If Ford Motor company can use 3D printers to make engine parts through casting via molds, guns are quite trivial to make using this technology. Again, guns don't kill people but irresponsible individuals do.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.