

Homeland Security Warns 3D-Printed Guns Are “Impossible” To Contain - bitsweet
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/homeland-security-reportedly-warns-3d-printed-guns-are-impossible-to-contain/

======
bifrost
I'd say "duh" but thats too obvious :)

If you're looking at a threat model for this, its exactly the same as a Zipgun
and in fact it probably costs a heck of a lot more than a zipgun so its even
less likely to be used. Zipguns have existed for over a century so its not
like this is some huge threat.

This is only a problem if you believe guns are {evil, sentient, bombs} or
something. The problem is always the wielder, never the tool, so if you
account for that you will always be prepared for any type of weapon...

~~~
splawn
I agree with your main point that this is a no brainer. I also think that the
"wielder" is part of the problem. However, I don't understand your point about
"wielder vs tool". This is something i have heard a lot of pro-gun people say
over and over again. However, that point only makes sense if guns are a
general purpose tool (such as a 3d printer or a computer), but they are not.
Guns are tools only used for killing. IMO, when it comes to civilian use, they
are at best used to fulfill an antiquated hobby and at worst used to kill
people.

Edit: back on main topic, if only mpaa and riaa would admit the same thing
about their struggle against the bits.

~~~
mindcrime
_Guns are tools only used for killing._

Not true. Sport-shooting of various sorts is a very popular past-time. You
have things like skeet shooting[1], ISSF shooting competitions[2], IPSC
Practical Shooting competition[3], etc.

And some of the contexts in which they are "used to kill" are hardly negative:
hunting for food (very commonplace in many areas) and self-defense come to
mind.

No, a gun may not be "general purpose" in the same way a 3D printer is, but it
certainly has no inherently malevolent intent.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting>

[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events>

[3]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shootin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation)

~~~
splawn
dang it, sry for my use of the word "only". However, what you mention here is
one of the things i had in mind when i said "antiquated hobby".

~~~
mindcrime
Fair enough. Being something of a firearms enthusiast myself, I don't exactly
agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

------
swalsh
Its hard to print bullets, why don't they just give up on regulating guns, and
regulate bullets?

~~~
hga
Practicality? The US civilian sector alone manufactures 11-12 _billion_ (sic)
per year (and we get tasty leftovers from manufacturing for the military on
their equipment at Lake City, plus there's imports), and that number will be
going up somewhat as e.g. Remington expands their Arkansas plant. Then there's
the problem that ammo, if stored in minimally good conditions (cool and dry,
of course), lasts a _very_ long time. A lot of WWII era ammo is still fine and
functional, although disfavored because most of it uses corrosive primers.

This is recognized in the near total deregulation in the US of ammo after it
leaves the manufacturer, you don't need any special license to sell it,
although shipping of course requires proper labeling (an ORD-M sticker) and
must be by ground.

Oh, yeah, the leftover brass of centerfire guns and brass and plastic hulls of
shotgun ammo can generally be reloaded a number of times, that's completely
unregulated beyond again the usual safety stuff, primers and smokeless powder
are somewhat more dangerous when packaged in bulk vs. as part of finished
rounds. And more on longevity: my father is still reloading shotgun shells
using powder from Hercules (now Alliant) casks bought plus or minus WWII
(!)....

