Print Your Gun at Home

Just a few years ago, 3-D printing was a futuristic idea of something that would never be real. It resembled a picture of the meals that would materialize in the oven after a single touch of a keypad (D’Aveni). Today, 3-D printers have become an important element of many people’s daily routines. They have caused a huge revolution in public consciousness. Yet, like any other technology, 3-D printing has its benefits and drawbacks. It empowers individuals to create small customized goods at home, thus eliminating the need for shopping.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Print Your Gun at Home specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Unfortunately, 3-D printing also erases the boundaries of legal and ethical activities, by letting individuals produce the goods that would otherwise be unavailable due to legal restrictions, such as guns. Modern researchers and public safety professionals agree that, couple d with the enormous information-disseminating power of the Internet, 3-D printers have the potential to turn gun manufacturing into a home-based industry, and banning 3-D-printed guns would only be possible in the presence of intolerably rigid enforcement procedures. When the gun fires deadly shots, no one thinks of its origins. However, with the growing popularity of 3-D printing, the origins of guns become major public safety problem. A gun that shots nine-millimeter bullets has all chances to kill a human. No less serious is the fact that the gun is made with a 3-D printer. Two months ago, the experts at the Austrian Interior Ministry performed a test of a 3-D-printed gun and concluded that it was a deadly weapon (Kantchev). The officials had downloaded the digital blueprints of the gun from the Internet (Kantchev). The 3-D printer used in the experiment was bought for $1,360 (Kantchev). The whole process took no more than 30 hours and $68 in plastic polymers (Kantchev). Apparent ly, the investments are worth the result. Earlier, the gun manufacturing industry was strongly regulated, and few individuals were allowed to own guns. Today, â€Å"law enforcement agencies are on alert over the proliferation of gun-making software that is easily found on the Internet and can be used to make a weapon on a consumer-grade 3-D printer† (Kantchev). Researchers are confident that new technologies give rise to a totally new kind of counterfeiters. Ten or twenty years ago, being a currency counterfeiter required skills, talent, and sophisticated technologies (Lipson Kurman 25). Present-day counterfeiters only need a nice 3-D printer to implement their illegal plans. They need the very basic computer skills and training to meet their crime goals (Lipson Kurman 25). The statistics look compelling: at the beginning of the 1990s, less than one percent of fake bills had been printed with the help of laser printers and computers (Lipson Kurman 25). Now, the Internet, s oftware, computer technologies, and printers make it easier for counterfeiters to invent and implement new ideas. In traditional currency printing, counterfeiters needed years of practical experience to achieve excellence; now, with printers and printing manuals available online, even a beginner can easily print a 3-D gun.Advertising Looking for research paper on common law? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The problem, however, is not that money counterfeiting is being replaced with guns. Rather, the problem is that, while counterfeit money damages the economic system, the damage of physical violence can be much more pervasive. In 2012, a user uploaded a blueprint for a 3-D rifle at Thingiverse.com (Lipson Kurman 25). The blueprint allowed users to print a rifle that would otherwise require a license and a background check. Later, the user was asked to delete the file from the website (Lipson Kurman 25). However, the number of those who have managed printed and used the blueprint to create a rifle remains unknown, thus presenting a serious threat to public safety. At the same time, specialists agree that 3-D printers alone cannot be blamed for increasing the number of computer users, who choose to sidestep the gun control laws. Without an enormous information-dissemination power of the Internet, 3-D printers would have hardly become a serious threat to gun control. In May 2013, a law student from Texas posted online blueprints for a 3-D printed handgun (Kantchev). In the next two days, the file was downloaded more than 100,000 times (Kantchev). The most active were users from Spain, followed by the United States, Germany, Brazil, and Britain (Kantchev). It is possible to assume that 3-D printing can become a convenient means to get a rifle in those countries, where gun control laws are the strictest. Even though, in most countries, owning an unregistered gun is a serious violation of law, thousands of Internet users are willing to test themselves and their new technologies. The temptation to print a gun is so huge that many users forget about the dangers and legal consequences that may follow. 3-D printers represent an effective means to cross the boundaries of law, and nothing can stop this process. Gun control laws become extremely ineffective in light of the growing popularity of 3-D printers. Even the most advanced technologies fail to detect the presence of guns in users’ pockets. Dozens of articles tell the stories of how 3D-printed plastic weapons successfully evade airport security checks (Kantchev). Although 3-D printing of weapons is still in the state of infancy, it already presents a bigger security problem. It is a global problem, because plastic 3-D-printed weapons are difficult to control. They can fire bullets and have the potential to kill (Kantchev). While legislators are devising new ways to stop the proliferation of 3-D-printed guns, gun designs continu e to improve (Kantchev).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Print Your Gun at Home specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The earlier versions of 3-D-printed guns could fire just a few times before the barrel was replaced, but the latest versions can fire as many as 10 shots in a row (Kantchev). â€Å"It is very difficult to do anything about it. Of course you can say that it is illegal, but as with everything else on the Internet, you can always get it from somewhere† (Kantchev). Does that mean that the era of legal gun control has come to its end? No, that does not. What it means is that it is high time for legislators to reconsider the effectiveness of the existing gun control laws. New measures are required to monitor the proliferation of deadly technologies over the Internet. Gun control crimes and violations should be treated as seriously as the threats of terrorist attacks posted online or the rapi d spreading of the terrorist bomb making materials over the Internet. An emerging consensus is that new measures to control 3-D printing of weapons should not be conventional, and enforcement mechanisms should be effective enough to deter firearms crimes. At present, American lawmakers are facing a serious challenge, as the law limiting the use of plastic guns gets to expire. In 1988, Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act that was reauthorized in 2003 (Fox News). According to the Act, it is illegal to manufacture, buy, import, ship, sell, possess, deliver, receive or transfer any firearms that cannot be detected by X-ray machines and metal detectors (Fox News). Under the Undetectable Firearms Act, every online user who prints a 3-D-gun violates the law. However, Congress lacks any consensus as to whether the discussed law should be extended. Opponents of gun control claim that the law does not need any extension, because 3-D printing technologies are still unpopular and unav ailable to masses (Fox News). A public perception is that 3-D-guns do not represent any serious issue and will hardly become a problem worth considering in the nearest future (Fox News). Yet, the reality is much more gruesome, as 3-D printers are becoming cheaper and more affordable to thousands of online users. Anyone who has $1,000 and access to the Internet can print a 3-D-gun. Not surprisingly, some senators express the need to ban all 3-D printers. The proposition will hardly become the best solution to the problem of poor gun control, because it will also violate a number of individual rights, freedoms, and guarantees granted by the U.S. Constitution.Advertising Looking for research paper on common law? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More All these views lead to : banning 3-D-printed guns will require measures of an unprecedented power, coupled with intolerable enforcement approaches. It is not enough to say that printing a metal 3-D-gun will cost more than private college tuition (Cooke). Also, it is not enough to pass the law that will outlaw the use of 3-D printers in gun manufacturing. America has tragic experiences with implementing bans on alcohol, a ban that has left a deep scar on the American memory and way of life. A total ban on 3-D printing will present similar risks (Cooke). To avoid the threats of public violence due to the growing affordability of 3-D printing, the American society will have to change its ideology rather than laws. Any attempt to control and outlaw 3-D printing of guns will entail government presence in almost all online activities (Cooke). Americans will have to get used to being monitored in their daily online activities, while access to gun blueprints on the Internet will have to be restricted in ways that are similar to the restrictions placed on pornography websites. When 28,000 Americans watch pornography every second, no one can guarantee that the situation with 3D guns will be different (Cooke). It is high time for U.S. government to act against the threats that may turn 3-D violence into a daily routine for millions of online users. In conclusion, researchers and public safety professionals agree that 3-D-printed guns represent a serious threat to public safety and democracy in the United States and the rest of the world. Like many other technologies, 3-D printers are becoming cheaper and easier to reach. Thousands of online users download blueprints of guns from the Internet. The temptation to have a gun without passing complicated legal procedures is extremely strong. As such, banning 3-D-printed guns would only be possible in the presence of intolerably rigid enforcement procedures. Moreover, it will require a total shift in the public ideology and co nsciousness. U.S. government should devise unconventional measures to protect the society from the risks of 3-D violence. Most likely, American citizens will have to sacrifice some of their freedoms and rights for the sake of improved public security. Works Cited Cooke, Charles C. â€Å"There’s No Stopping 3-D-Printed Guns.† National Review, 11 Nov 2013. Web. D’Aveni, Richard A. â€Å"3-D Printing Will Change the World.† Harvard Business Review,  March 2013. Web. Fox News. â€Å"Lawmakers Seek Fix as Law Limiting Plastic Guns Set to Expire.† Fox  News, 29 Nov 2013. Web. Kantchev, Georgi. â€Å"Authorities Worry 3-D Printers May Undermine Europe’s Gun Laws.† The New York Times, 17 Oct 2013. Web. Lipson, Hod and Melba Kurman. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing.  Sudbury: John Wiley and Sons, 2013. Print. This research paper on Print Your Gun at Home was written and submitted by user Nolan Newton to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Agm Case Analysis Essays

Agm Case Analysis Essays Agm Case Analysis Essay Agm Case Analysis Essay A593 Case Discussions Agm. com (A) 1. What were the factors that caused actual quarterly income to be less than budgeted ? What was the quantitative effect of each of these factors ? 1) Sales Variance: 40,800 negative effect ? 2) Marketing Administrative costs : $ 45,000 negative effect 3) Labor Cost : $13,316 *For details please refer to exhibit 1 2. For which of these factors, if any, should Marelie be held responsible ? Strike is force majule, but Marelie does not prepare backup server in case of trouble. Can be Maries responsibility Sales forecast: OVAL market analysis was not enough. ROUND and SQUARE sales are almost within the budget in spite of shutdown, while OVAL is not. Both Board and Marelie should be held responsible. Labor cost increase: Uncontrolable, basically there was a limit to what Marelie could have done to handle this issue. Maybe she could have done a better job to predict changes in the labor market, but still there was a limit to what she could have done. Marketing and Administrative cost: Too much add on. The amount added is not only because shutdown damage but because start up stage needs a lot of ads to penetrate the market. The campaign giving free shipment to customers who bought more than $100 also increased logistics cost. Board (Marketing) and Marelie. 3. Should the target for the bonus be changed to reflect these factors ? explain. The target for bonus should be adjusted to take into account factors that Marelie had no or limited control over. Factors such as changes in wage or, sales decrease due to server shut down, were basically uncontrollable factors. There are limits to what Marelie could have done to prevent these issues, and hence such effects should be considered to adjust a new target budget.

Discussion Board Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 12

Discussion Board - Assignment Example This simply means that the conditions one experiences in prisons may vary from one place to another. Therefore, asserting that convict criminologists have more credibility in regard to their information of prison life is a farfetched idea. On the other hand, prison is a dynamic place where people get convicted on a daily basis with different criminal offenses. Political systems are also changing on a daily basis meaning that new rules and regulations governing human actions are formulated and implemented each time, thus an action that was not considered a crime in the early 90’s could be considered a crime in the contemporary society and vice-versa. This creates a need for continuous learning on issues ascribed to prison life, thus one person cannot claim that owing to the fact that he was convicted ten years ago, he is in a better position to comprehend prison-related issues than other scholar. In conclusion, the credibility of convict criminologists, does matter, they have a unique source of knowledge that is not possessed by people who have never been