I was shocked and disappointed by the irresponsible statements by Otago University Law and Emerging Technologies academic Colin Gavaghan reported in New Zealand media:
“He said it would be incredibly difficult to stop blueprints being accessible online and police could instead investigate the possibility of regulating who owns 3D printing devices.” - RNZ (link here and below)
I expect much more forward thinking solutions from a research center with a vision “… to encourage the formulation of a framework for the systematic and comprehensive evaluation of emerging technologies, and to build New Zealand’s legal and policy capability in these developing areas.” - Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies
Having the right to make guns is a completely separate issue from having the right to distribute instructions for making guns. This is the entire point of Cory’s article, and is already extensively litigated first amendment case law in the US.
I actually do like guns. I’ve made some guns also cannons. I used to make my own gunpowder, learned from encyclopedias and bought the ingredients at Payless. The first gun I made when I was fourteen was a metal toy gun. I cut the head off of a bolt then drilled it out the size of a .22 shell and hammered it into the back of the barrel. i filed the hammer to have a high spot on it like a firing pin, then I wrapped a thick rubber band around the hammer to make it strike harder. It worked, probably about as well as these printed POSs. I had it in health class and another guy was looking at it when Mr. Young came up and asked to see it. the guy was swift and pulled the bullet out before he gave it to him. Very military Mr. Young looked it over, handed it back to the kid and said, “you guys are going to kill yourselves”, and walked off. Now don’t any of you little fellas look up the laws on black powder weapons or you will faint and go into a coma.
Just because you can doesn’t mean any schmo can do it. You need a drill press - a good one, and some skill to operate it without destroying the lower receiver.
Exactly, it would be easier to buy good plastic stock in the shape you could use and then machine them with a router and drill press, glue them together, rubber bands for springs rock firing pin pack it like a muzzle loader and use a rock bullet.
You mean how muzzle loading cannons don’t require any background check, nor muzzle loading firearms? (They aren’t even considered fire arms.) They even make suppressed ones now that don’t require any checks.
There was a pharmacist at the Walmart I worked at that did cannoning, but I never went out to check it out.
That’s incredibly fucked up. Having a sever penalty for having guns is one thing, but criminalizing books on how to make guns shows complete disregard for freedom of expression. There are all kinds of reasons you could have those aside from wanting to make guns, and you shouldn’t have to justify what books you want to read to anyone.
We decided, as a nation, that guns are not something we need around. The lives of citizens are more important than stopping a tiny number of hobbyist from being able to see how to construct deadly weapons (I am sure there are exceptions for licensed gunsmiths).
This is not a slippery slope - guns, access to guns, and the means of making guns are very tightly controlled, that is all.
I don’t have a problem with you guys outlawing guns. That seems pretty sensible. I have a problem with outlawing books.
I think making books about guns illegal is definitely a slippery slope, since you could make exactly the same argument to ban books about other topics deemed illegal or socially destructive, like drugs.
From there it’s only a short step until counterculture classics like Shulgin’s PiHKAL or Uncle Fester’s Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture are illegal.
PiHKAL actually was banned here. It no longer is, which should indicate that the situation may be more nuanced than I think you are assuming.
In general, if a works fails the “community standards of decency” test, then most people won’t have a major issue with it being restricted.
It’s not hyperbole to say that instructions for knock off gun production would be viewed by most Australians as not far up the scale from child porn. Bomb and chemical weapon instructions are in the same category.
There are problems with the systems of content classification (how censorship is implemented) used in Aus, eg. There was not a 18+ rating for video games until recently, but limiting access to these files is not one of them.
There are millions of people all around the world using firearms that hurt no one. They may own firearms 100+ years old who never hurt anyone. Millions use their firearms every day for sports, hunting, or recreational shooting. Lumping these people in as “not far up the scale from [pedophiles]” is baloney.
Conversely there are no people viewing child porn that don’t directly contribute to child abuse. One can’t possess child porn with out a victimization of a minor taking place.
As @anon62122146 said, wanting to ban certain guns or change the laws to include licensing or registration, I too can understand that even if I don’t agree with it. Banning books and information one feels that fails the “community standards of decency” is all well and good, until you have some like, oh, I dunno, Trump, deciding what is “decent”.
I have been assured by other Australians that there are still plenty of guns in Australia. Over 800,000 owners by the look of it.
I think the fact that it ever was illustrates my point perfectly. I put it forward as a hypothetical example of government overreach, and y’alls ministry of truth turned out to be way ahead of me. It is, indeed, a very slippery slope, and if you give your government the power to ban books, they will abuse it. I think this inevitable abuse is far more dangerous than the contents of books could ever be.
That’s almost a tautology, but it doesn’t describe a system with anything you could reasonably call a free press. By that measure you could easily ban anything William Burroughs wrote, or anything about transsexual rights, until it was mainstream, or really just about anything.
Edit: Looks like the Aussie book-burners were way ahead of my hypothetical extreme example again. Naked Lunch was banned there for 13 years. That’s fucked up, and if your government can do that, you can’t claim to have freedom of press.
Actually, you know what: I specifically did not mention gun owners in my comment, only instructions for making knockoffs (or bombs, or chemical weapons). THOSE are what people have a problem with, so take your offence-on-the-behalf-of-gun-owners elsewhere please.
Come now. You aren’t worried about people possessing the knowledge to “theoretically become gun owners”. You are worried they will take that knowledge and make them.
I’ll concede bad people may misuse this information. But the valid point stands that even owners who make their own, most are doing it as a hobby like any other maker type out there.
And while this isn’t directly related to the article, since you brought it up, people who play around making their own fireworks or small explosives are generally also looking to make a few loud bangs, not hurt anyone.
ETA - And even if one does want restrictions on 3D files, etc, one can do so with out demonizing others.
Under the unified national gun laws, manufacturing guns or parts of guns without a manufacturers licensed is illegal. Making access to these plans difficult and with penalties is perfectly inline with that.
I’m not really interested in discussing gun laws any further with you - I’m sure you won’t find it offensive if I say you have form on this topic and it is unlikely to lead anywhere.
My original point, which has gotten lost in this parade, is that the people creating these plans have an impact on the wider world, with a stated goal of exporting the total failure of US gun control to the rest of the world. Anything that can be done to prevent that is a good thing, up to and including crimianalising these items.
Fair point it’s illegal in your country. So if you are going to restrict plans/blueprints/3D files (nigh impossible this digital age), then would you also go as far to restrict access to people owning milling machines, CNC machines, and the like? People like my grandpa could make just about anything out of metal. Any half way skilled machinist could make at the least a basic firearm, even with out plans. After all, if the mere possession of plans should be regulated as it makes things too easy to break the law, wouldn’t the actual equipment needed be even more dangerous and thus require additional regulation?
