Tweet
The author clearly has a liberal bias, but actually understands and communicates why 3D printing firearms isn't much of a concern. I wonder if other media outlets will actually pick up on this information or if they will remain ignorant and continue with their fear mongering with sensationalist reporting.
https://www.wired.com/story/defense-...eral-gun-laws/
https://www.wired.com/story/defense-...eral-gun-laws/
The entire gun debate is really about that last 20 percent of the bureaucratic “gun,†and how and where it happens. This is where Defense Distributed really comes in. They sell you a gadget that makes that last 20 percent step easier than doing it yourself, via a computer-controlled milling technology that’s been around forever. It isn’t a fundamentally new gun technology, but it is an important last-mile advance.
I mention 3-D printing nowhere. That’s because it’s irrelevant, and most of what you read about 3-D-printed guns is noise. 3-D printing is a relatively immature manufacturing technology, and it won’t be making a modern, repeating firearm any time soon. (At least not the home 3-D printers that are cheaply available.) The only reason 3-D printing is even in the story is because Defense Distributed, geniuses at marketing, created a toy 3-D-printed product that could fire one round (before maybe exploding in your hand) as a way to plant the meme in the heads of people (and politicians) who know nothing about guns.
So why is everyone freaking out, including the attorneys general of several states that are suing Defense Distributed to stop? First, they are misunderstanding the technology, and believing Star Trek replicator fantasies around 3-D printing and guns. Second, and more seriously, advances in gun modularity and manufacturing now make most gun regulation obsolete.
I mention 3-D printing nowhere. That’s because it’s irrelevant, and most of what you read about 3-D-printed guns is noise. 3-D printing is a relatively immature manufacturing technology, and it won’t be making a modern, repeating firearm any time soon. (At least not the home 3-D printers that are cheaply available.) The only reason 3-D printing is even in the story is because Defense Distributed, geniuses at marketing, created a toy 3-D-printed product that could fire one round (before maybe exploding in your hand) as a way to plant the meme in the heads of people (and politicians) who know nothing about guns.
So why is everyone freaking out, including the attorneys general of several states that are suing Defense Distributed to stop? First, they are misunderstanding the technology, and believing Star Trek replicator fantasies around 3-D printing and guns. Second, and more seriously, advances in gun modularity and manufacturing now make most gun regulation obsolete.