I love this guy, a strong voice for liberty. What I love most of all, is his essay pointing out that this model, of printed firearms, is only to demonstrate a point. People have, and can, manufacture firearms in their homes for, usually, cheaper costs than 3D printing. Mr. Wilson's 3D printing concept only hammers in the public's eye that this is a freedom that shall not ever be infringed.
Why I 3D printed a gun? One argument could be, because you cannot trust your liberty to anyone. Each man has an obligation to defend his liberty (and of those he loves) himself. As long as we have society like that, everything will be fine. Not perfect, but fine.
Do you think it's right what this guy did by developing that technology, putting firearm power in the hands of every average schmuck despite the fact that we have nation-states who have their own individual gun legislation, mostly democratically agreed upon by their individual polities? I mean I understand that in the USA people're big on this 2nd Amendment stuff but keep that dangerous lifestyle to the USA. Uploading that 3d gun printing code on the World Wibe Web, he has potentially violated the sovereignty of every nation-state regarding firearm restriction. He has made the world a much more dangerous place and that scares me. He's like a modern day Oppenheimer.
Olisa Maduegbuna It was just a matter of time someone did this and he did it. If someone wants to do harm he will do it, but much less likely if he knows there are other people around that can stop him. Example: the cinema where that wacko shot lots of people. He chose (exactly) that cinema because he knew there were no guns allowed. If they were allowed he would be shot soon and people would be much safer.
Ydonkov I understand this line of reasoning that it's the person not the gun. But this has been over exaggerated by the US gun lobby. Actually I think it's both: the gun and the person are responsible for the vicious acts. If you study Freud or just think about it from common sense you'll realise that human beings get urges and impulses when they see any object or tool eg. a gun, to use that object when they have the opportunity. During a heated argument, in the heat of passion someone will use the first tool around them and if its a gun, that's more dangerous than if its just a I don't know a baseball bat or some other melee weapon which the victim can defend himself from. But a gun being such a deadly weapon, there is little or no chance of escaping from someone wielding a gun if you're caught unaware. Or take the example of a prison, if your theory was right that its only people behind the trigger at fault, not the weapons they use then it wouldn't make sense that in US prisons , violent prisoners' 2nd amendment rights are barred by taking guns away from them. Because after all right, the guards have guns and so if you have good guys with guns bad guys with guns are not a threat, and if you took away the guns from the violent murderer prisoners they would simply find another weapon to use to carry out their deranged violent acts. But in US prisons that is obviously not the case, prisoners are barred from possessing guns because the authorities know that the equation of deadly violence = the tool of killing eg. gun + a person willing to use it. So it is both the person and the gun. And we should use all means to limit that equation as much as possible, tackling both sides. We should first take away the tool of killing eg. gun and then try and rehabilitate the person who is willing to use the gun. So the USA should have both mental health checks and bans on handguns. Yes there will always be mentally deranged psychopaths like the guy who wore the Joker outfit and did the Aurora shootings but still you potentially disarm this guy before hand if you take away the gun from him. If you regulate that gun and make it rare for people to posses them, this mentally retarded guy has no vehicle to convert his lunacy into death of others. It's both the gun and the person behind the trigger at fault and so in my opinion it's better we limit the equation as much as possible by restricting gun ownership to such a small proportion that even with the wackiest members of our society, deadly acts will not be the results of their actions. Now, concerning my initial objection to Cody's actions, I recognise your point that someone else would probably have published this 3d gun technology eventually but that was not my quarrel, my quarrel was that someone doing it regardless if it's Cody now or 'James' in the future, the act makes the world a much more dangerous place. Cody by doing this has increased the probability of violent gun crime occurring in nation-states outside North America who ban handguns such as the UK.
Olisa Maduegbuna Tnx for posting such an well written and detailed argument. You have point for shure. However America has so many guns, that you will never get rid of them and now technology makes it even easier to use guns. Wackos will print them and I am all for it when someone stops them at their evil deed. America also has a specific culture. The origin of the 2nd amendment is to enable public to protect and overthrow the abusive government. And governments get abusive. Constitution was writen by good and "enlightened" people and those standards are still valid. Therefore I support the law that people can defend themselves and their family, not giving away that right to some 3rd person.
Just goes to show school doesn't educate you, it just takes your money and hands you some paper that says you can take a test and pass. Never let school stop you from getting an Education. Mark Twain
I understand him. I just don't take 10 mins to say what 1 min would accomplish. Now go get an education in "Make your damn point" because people value their time over how long it takes one to answer a question. Something you should learn as well. Good Day
I agree that he overcomplicated his speech and through that lost a lot of clarity, but what he said was gibberish. He maintained a consecutive point and used those words accurately. Honestly I'm just glad I got to learn 1 or 2 new words from this.
to preserve freedom for the common man against corrupt-states with the monopoly on violence. maybe we can't appreciate it so much because we can't imagine our freedoms being so badly taken away by our government. but what about in the middle-east, where our government has helped kill millions of their people? in the name of oil, gold, drugs and middle-east geo-political control... this technology has the potential to end all ground wars if used effectively... and who knows from here.. potentially ending more than just ground-wars.
You can get any number of AR15 variants for under $1000 in the U.S. Couple hundred more, and you'll have it souped to the tits just the way you want it. So, for less than $2000, you've got a battle-proven killing machine capable of mowing down hundreds of people with inexpensive military surplus ammo at your disposal. Trust me, no one in the U.S. is interested in interfering with your ability to kill your fellow human with ease.
we have a god given right to be able to defend ourselves! no police or government can prevent anything from happening to anyone, only pick up the pieces. noway in the world would i trust my life with any such agencies!!
Him and people like him have the impression that you're still on equal footing with the government, like in the days of the musket, if only you have your gun.
+Radu Andrei and people like these are the ones who will fight and die when the time comes. Laugh from a distance all you want, but this guy has the character of a good man. He will die for you even though you wont die for him... sad really. We are an endangered breed.
Let's be generous and say he can muster 1% of the US population under the circumstances that we are being openly oppressed at the barrel of a gun. The US has 330 million people in it. We have a standing army of roughly 500000 soldiers plus roughly 1 million in reserve. Those numbers are not exclusively infantry and combat arms mind you. With 3.3 million vs only 500000 regular soldiers, the people of the United States have a massive advantage. That also doesn't factor in that our military is likely to being skeptical of carrying out orders that would go directly against the oath they gave when they enlisted. tl;dr, they have a better chance than you think.
if you look at codys background he cites anarcos-capitalists and anarcho- communists as both influencing his philosophy....which to me doesn't make him a centrist or a bipartisan thinker , it makes him a contradiction. id like to know where he stands on issues, you can be pro-gun and still left on all other issues, in fact the gun issue might be the only issue leftists can embrace without falling into a contradiction. so id like to know his other views to see how consistent they are, not to challenge his ethics, but to at least see where his confusions are
Why is it that some speakers when they come to places like the Oxford Union feel they have to do the opposite of dumb down their speech: massively over-enhance their vocabulary. I mean there is a certain high standard of vocabulary required to precisely and eloquently express yourself in the English language to an educated audience BUT there is a point after which you start to present yourself as an ignorant ass hole trying to deliberately over-enhance your vocabulary to an unnecessary degree. This is the same thing King Joffrey did (guy from Game of Thrones). It's embarrassing.
He always talks like that. I find it strange that this is the only video I've seen of him where many commenters complain about not understanding what he says.
Where is the rest of the video?! This is some very interesting subject matter, its the leading point edge of emerging technologies, and a rare political position with pragmatics to it... why cut it short, meanwhile you have an interview with some rapper, for more then 70 minutes about .. what he likes to wear. Disappointing.
That's because they only published the first part of the video where he is leading up to his point. The part of the video where he is actually making his point was conveniently excluded.
Nah i dont think so. Part of being intelligent is knowing what to say and how to say it so that you avoid 3 minutes of pure grade A bullshit. I've seen various other interviews and videos with him and it's clear he is simply a slight messiah complex effected wannabe philosopher who also has a strange obsession with everyone owning objects that make killing incredibly simple.
david19835 You're seeing the ants in the cupboard and extrapolating to the hive. It's not that he's egotistical and therefore acts like he's smart, it's that being intelligent shapes people into egotists.. especially when they're successful in their ventures. At least he's doing something significant man, there are thousands of wasted superminds who would rather get all the attention with none of the action.
When did American politics become synonymous with the West? There is no "West" on the political spectrum in the sense implied by the speaker. The cultural lens of American life is not applicable to every developed nation in the western hemisphere. Cody and his partner built a firearm using a 3-D printer -- and freely distributed the blueprints of the gun online -- because it was a novel innovation that would make them popular in the States and appear daring, even radical, overseas. It is a publicity stunt, albeit a very dangerous one. In my estimation of Cody's character, a few minutes of drivel at the Oxford Union is not going to justify what he has done.
Oxford has gone downhill when they're inviting goobers like this to speak. The guy is in love with the sound of his own voice spouting his half baked pseudointellectual philosophy.
I love this guy, a strong voice for liberty.
What I love most of all, is his essay pointing out that this model, of printed firearms, is only to demonstrate a point. People have, and can, manufacture firearms in their homes for, usually, cheaper costs than 3D printing. Mr. Wilson's 3D printing concept only hammers in the public's eye that this is a freedom that shall not ever be infringed.
he is a terrible person, garbage, either stupid or evil and he is not stupid
This man is one of my heros
Is the full talk up anywhere?
Why I 3D printed a gun? One argument could be, because you cannot trust your liberty to anyone. Each man has an obligation to defend his liberty (and of those he loves) himself. As long as we have society like that, everything will be fine. Not perfect, but fine.
Do you think it's right what this guy did by developing that technology, putting firearm power in the hands of every average schmuck despite the fact that we have nation-states who have their own individual gun legislation, mostly democratically agreed upon by their individual polities? I mean I understand that in the USA people're big on this 2nd Amendment stuff but keep that dangerous lifestyle to the USA. Uploading that 3d gun printing code on the World Wibe Web, he has potentially violated the sovereignty of every nation-state regarding firearm restriction. He has made the world a much more dangerous place and that scares me. He's like a modern day Oppenheimer.
Olisa Maduegbuna It was just a matter of time someone did this and he did it. If someone wants to do harm he will do it, but much less likely if he knows there are other people around that can stop him.
Example: the cinema where that wacko shot lots of people. He chose (exactly) that cinema because he knew there were no guns allowed. If they were allowed he would be shot soon and people would be much safer.
Ydonkov I understand this line of reasoning that it's the person not the gun. But this has been over exaggerated by the US gun lobby. Actually I think it's both: the gun and the person are responsible for the vicious acts. If you study Freud or just think about it from common sense you'll realise that human beings get urges and impulses when they see any object or tool eg. a gun, to use that object when they have the opportunity. During a heated argument, in the heat of passion someone will use the first tool around them and if its a gun, that's more dangerous than if its just a I don't know a baseball bat or some other melee weapon which the victim can defend himself from. But a gun being such a deadly weapon, there is little or no chance of escaping from someone wielding a gun if you're caught unaware. Or take the example of a prison, if your theory was right that its only people behind the trigger at fault, not the weapons they use then it wouldn't make sense that in US prisons , violent prisoners' 2nd amendment rights are barred by taking guns away from them. Because after all right, the guards have guns and so if you have good guys with guns bad guys with guns are not a threat, and if you took away the guns from the violent murderer prisoners they would simply find another weapon to use to carry out their deranged violent acts. But in US prisons that is obviously not the case, prisoners are barred from possessing guns because the authorities know that the equation of deadly violence = the tool of killing eg. gun + a person willing to use it. So it is both the person and the gun. And we should use all means to limit that equation as much as possible, tackling both sides. We should first take away the tool of killing eg. gun and then try and rehabilitate the person who is willing to use the gun. So the USA should have both mental health checks and bans on handguns. Yes there will always be mentally deranged psychopaths like the guy who wore the Joker outfit and did the Aurora shootings but still you potentially disarm this guy before hand if you take away the gun from him. If you regulate that gun and make it rare for people to posses them, this mentally retarded guy has no vehicle to convert his lunacy into death of others. It's both the gun and the person behind the trigger at fault and so in my opinion it's better we limit the equation as much as possible by restricting gun ownership to such a small proportion that even with the wackiest members of our society, deadly acts will not be the results of their actions. Now, concerning my initial objection to Cody's actions, I recognise your point that someone else would probably have published this 3d gun technology eventually but that was not my quarrel, my quarrel was that someone doing it regardless if it's Cody now or 'James' in the future, the act makes the world a much more dangerous place. Cody by doing this has increased the probability of violent gun crime occurring in nation-states outside North America who ban handguns such as the UK.
Olisa Maduegbuna
Tnx for posting such an well written and detailed argument. You have point for shure.
However America has so many guns, that you will never get rid of them and now technology makes it even easier to use guns. Wackos will print them and I am all for it when someone stops them at their evil deed.
America also has a specific culture. The origin of the 2nd amendment is to enable public to protect and overthrow the abusive government. And governments get abusive. Constitution was writen by good and "enlightened" people and those standards are still valid. Therefore I support the law that people can defend themselves and their family, not giving away that right to some 3rd person.
Man, he sure can waffle.
Is this the only video that's going to be released or will we get to see the rest of the talk?
Didn't understand a fucking word that bloke said
Didnt understand a fucking word you just said
Then that's a problem on YOUR part, not his.
that is cause he said fuck all
So many sophisticated words
i wonder if he usually talks like this, or if he felt the need to because he is in oxford...
He does, he has a graduate degree.
Just goes to show school doesn't educate you, it just takes your money and hands you some paper that says you can take a test and pass.
Never let school stop you from getting an Education.
Mark Twain
Maybe if you bothered to actually get an education, you would be able to understand what he is saying.
I understand him. I just don't take 10 mins to say what 1 min would accomplish.
Now go get an education in "Make your damn point" because people value their time over how long it takes one to answer a question. Something you should learn as well.
Good Day
lol
I agree that he overcomplicated his speech and through that lost a lot of clarity, but what he said was gibberish. He maintained a consecutive point and used those words accurately. Honestly I'm just glad I got to learn 1 or 2 new words from this.
where can I find the full video?
Why did he print a gun?
to preserve freedom for the common man against corrupt-states with the monopoly on violence.
maybe we can't appreciate it so much because we can't imagine our freedoms being so badly taken away by our government. but what about in the middle-east, where our government has helped kill millions of their people? in the name of oil, gold, drugs and middle-east geo-political control... this technology has the potential to end all ground wars if used effectively... and who knows from here.. potentially ending more than just ground-wars.
Much obliged
You can get any number of AR15 variants for under $1000 in the U.S.
Couple hundred more, and you'll have it souped to the tits just the way you want it.
So, for less than $2000, you've got a battle-proven killing machine capable of mowing down hundreds of people with inexpensive military surplus ammo at your disposal.
Trust me, no one in the U.S. is interested in interfering with your ability to kill your fellow human with ease.
RichardZERO good, thats the way it should be.
we have a god given right to be able to defend ourselves! no police or government can prevent anything from happening to anyone, only pick up the pieces. noway in the world would i trust my life with any such agencies!!
What if you could? Wouldn't you then feel a little demotivated to take up arms if your law enforcers did what was expected of them?
Him and people like him have the impression that you're still on equal footing with the government, like in the days of the musket, if only you have your gun.
***** But they had more of a fighting chance.
+Radu Andrei and people like these are the ones who will fight and die when the time comes. Laugh from a distance all you want, but this guy has the character of a good man. He will die for you even though you wont die for him... sad really. We are an endangered breed.
***** I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, he will most likely die in vain.
Let's be generous and say he can muster 1% of the US population under the circumstances that we are being openly oppressed at the barrel of a gun. The US has 330 million people in it. We have a standing army of roughly 500000 soldiers plus roughly 1 million in reserve. Those numbers are not exclusively infantry and combat arms mind you. With 3.3 million vs only 500000 regular soldiers, the people of the United States have a massive advantage. That also doesn't factor in that our military is likely to being skeptical of carrying out orders that would go directly against the oath they gave when they enlisted.
tl;dr, they have a better chance than you think.
What a way to cut it off, jesus christ. He was just getting to the point after all that ideological grappling
I have no idea what the purpose of the printing gun is. so confusing to me.
He did it because he was frustrated with the liquidation of democracy.
Voted upwards.
All that he said here was nothing more than an intro, surely there is more to this ?
if you look at codys background he cites anarcos-capitalists and anarcho- communists as both influencing his philosophy....which to me doesn't make him a centrist or a bipartisan thinker , it makes him a contradiction. id like to know where he stands on issues, you can be pro-gun and still left on all other issues, in fact the gun issue might be the only issue leftists can embrace without falling into a contradiction. so id like to know his other views to see how consistent they are, not to challenge his ethics, but to at least see where his confusions are
So...
The Second Amendment is anarchy now.
Why is it that some speakers when they come to places like the Oxford Union feel they have to do the opposite of dumb down their speech: massively over-enhance their vocabulary. I mean there is a certain high standard of vocabulary required to precisely and eloquently express yourself in the English language to an educated audience BUT there is a point after which you start to present yourself as an ignorant ass hole trying to deliberately over-enhance your vocabulary to an unnecessary degree. This is the same thing King Joffrey did (guy from Game of Thrones). It's embarrassing.
He always talks like that. I find it strange that this is the only video I've seen of him where many commenters complain about not understanding what he says.
xMiCHaElGaBRiEL
Probably because Oxbridge prides itself on being supremely unaware of how entitled it is, and doesn't like a show off.
You could interpret one of my farts better than you could understand this guy. Has the phrase, 'talking out of your arse' ever been more appropriate?
Did this guy want to actually make a point or just brag about the books he’s read?
I feel like he has to talk like this because of Oxford. He should really take out the highfalutin language and speak more plainly.
literally got nowhere with that speech
Where is the rest of the video?! This is some very interesting subject matter, its the leading point edge of emerging technologies, and a rare political position with pragmatics to it... why cut it short, meanwhile you have an interview with some
rapper, for more then 70 minutes about .. what he likes to wear. Disappointing.
So many words, so little content.
That's because they only published the first part of the video where he is leading up to his point. The part of the video where he is actually making his point was conveniently excluded.
Nah i dont think so. Part of being intelligent is knowing what to say and how to say it so that you avoid 3 minutes of pure grade A bullshit. I've seen various other interviews and videos with him and it's clear he is simply a slight messiah complex effected wannabe philosopher who also has a strange obsession with everyone owning objects that make killing incredibly simple.
david19835 You're seeing the ants in the cupboard and extrapolating to the hive. It's not that he's egotistical and therefore acts like he's smart, it's that being intelligent shapes people into egotists.. especially when they're successful in their ventures. At least he's doing something significant man, there are thousands of wasted superminds who would rather get all the attention with none of the action.
He was set up.
you will be president someday. you speak "presidential" fluently.
Lefty?
I know this comment is half a decade old, but come on man he's so clearly a liberterian, it's different in the US.
When did American politics become synonymous with the West? There is no "West" on the political spectrum in the sense implied by the speaker. The cultural lens of American life is not applicable to every developed nation in the western hemisphere. Cody and his partner built a firearm using a 3-D printer -- and freely distributed the blueprints of the gun online -- because it was a novel innovation that would make them popular in the States and appear daring, even radical, overseas. It is a publicity stunt, albeit a very dangerous one. In my estimation of Cody's character, a few minutes of drivel at the Oxford Union is not going to justify what he has done.
What a load of rubbish. No one sensible point can be found in this creature's speech.
Oxford has gone downhill when they're inviting goobers like this to speak. The guy is in love with the sound of his own voice spouting his half baked pseudointellectual philosophy.