Poll: 62 Percent Say Americans Should be Allowed to Own 3D Printers; Majority Opposes 3D Printed Guns


Recently the world's first fully 3D-printed gun was successfully fired and Reason-Rupe findsAmericans are torn on 3D technology.  A substantial 62 percent of Americans say people should be allowed to use 3D printers in their homes. However, a majority (53 percent) of these Americans oppose allowing people to print their own guns.

Most demographic and political groups support private ownership of 3D printers, although men are 14 points more likely than women (69 to 55 percent). Support for 3D printers increases with income but decreases with age. For instance, while 77 percent of college-aged Americans support household 3D printers, only 43 percent of seniors agree.

Among those who support private ownership of 3D printers, the most striking difference emerges between men and women when asked if individuals should be allowed to use 3D printers to print their own guns. While 57 percent of men think Americans should be allowed to print their own guns, only 28 percent of women agree. When taking into account marital status, unmarried women (75 percent) are even more likely than married women (58 percent) to oppose 3D printed guns.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted May 9-13 2013 interviewed 1003 adults on both mobile (503) and landline (500) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results found here. Full methodology can be found here. Demographics and detailed tables are available here.

NEXT: British Regulator Bans Pamela Anderson Ad For Being 'Sexist and Degrading to Women'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In the next poll – ask them “Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to print their own Sexbots or Sexbots parts in their own home?”

    Bet the wymyns will not be pleased with that.

  2. 62 Percent Say Americans Should be Allowed to Own 3D Printers
    62 percent of Americans say people should be allowed to use 3D printers in their homes

    Precision, please, Emily. Which is it?

    1. 62% say americans should be allowed to own and use 3d printers in their own homes. On the sidewalk, we get into complications.

  3. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning. Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools. Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects). Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.


    1. There are people who want to mandate fences around pools. Probably with locking gates.

      1. My folks have a pool. The city made them put a fence around it such that a passerby couldn’t see the pool, along with locking gates.

        1. Well, there you go.

    2. Honestly, if you have a child under the age of six or seven, it is probably irresponsible to own a pool. They are killers of small children. Once kids are older and can learn how to swim well, then not so much. But at the age where they can’t swim but are mobile and hard to keep track of, a swimming pool is a real danger.

      But no one ever says that because guns you know.

      1. When I lived in Phoenix, pools killed small kids on an regular basis. It was a constant topic in the news.

        1. yeah. Pools are so attractive to kids. You can’t keep them out of them. That is fine with older kids who can swim. But with four and five year old kids who may not know how to swim, it is like keeping a Bengal tiger in your backyard. It takes all of a single minute of them out of your sight for them to drown.

          And every parent should teach their kid how to swim at the earliest age possible.

          1. I recall there being regulations requiring fences with locking gates around private pools, but I also remember lots of friends’ pools without fences.

            Having a pool and little kids is the height of irresponsible parenting.

            1. You have to have a big fence or no one will insure your house. But the fence doesn’t work so well when the kid lives in the house where the pool is.

              1. No. These regulations required fencing around the pool (inside the outer fence around the yard) specifically to keep kids in the house from drowning. I think they were enacted while I was living there, and there was a long period when pre-existing houses/pools continued to have no safety fences.

      2. THanks, like I already wasn’t concerned that my 6 year old figured out how to undo the locks to the pool at my parents place two weeks ago. Followed by a quick reminder that he was not to go into the pool area without a grownup. Up until then he was very proud of himslef.

        1. Take him to a swimming class. Teach him to be a competent swimmer. That way if he doesn’t listen to you, chances are nothing bad will happen.

          1. Trust me I’ve been looking for a place. I’m divorced so I get the kids every other week and the ex doesn’t want to find a place between us so we could each take them on our respective weekends. I also haven’t had any luck finding a place that will accomodate me. I may have to try to find some private lesson somewhere.

            1. Your local YMCA should have a bunch of colleg-aged lifeguards willing to give private lessons. My old roomate used to make a killing at it.

              1. I’ll look into that.

                1. I got all my swimming & life-saving certifications through the Red Cross by way of the local Boy Scout troop when I was growing up.

              2. I was going to suggest the YMCA as well.

  4. Guess this proves most people are clueless. That’s like saying people support intercourse but think orgasms should be banned.

    1. We just need a tax on excessive orgasms, and maybe a ban on high capacity orgasms. Why would anyone need more than say, 7?

    2. Yes they are. If only there was a way to prevent saving them around pools when they were children.

  5. Watching the handwringing over this at places like boingboing is hilarious, as people try to contort the definition of freedom into one that allows all the things that they personally like (3d printing, dissolution of copyright laws, free access to information) and magically ends just before somebody does something with which they disagree, like providing free blueprints for a 3d printed gun.

    These are the same idiots who prattle on about the virtue of net neutrality and then condemn SOPA/CISPA – as if it’s some huge shock that wanting government oversight of internet access could ever create any problems.

    “Clearly 3d printing should be embraced and remain completely unfettered. As long as people don’t do something with it that I find offensive.”

    1. “Clearly 3d printing freedom should be embraced and remain completely unfettered. As long as people don’t do something with it that I find offensive.”

      This is pretty much the prog-tard mindset in a nutshell. The minute someone chooses something, anything, that they’re offended by or disapprove of, it’s nothing but pearl clutching “Won’t someone think if the chillunz!” bullshit.

      Of course socons aren’t any better, it’s just different shit that sets them off.

  6. While 57 percent of men think Americans should be allowed to print their own guns, only 28 percent of women agree.

    Women have always been more prone to supporting protectionism. Smith & Wesson appreciate the help.

    1. It makes you think our ancestors may have had a point denying women the vote. There is absolutely no denying that America would be a freer country right now if women didn’t have the vote.

      1. I’ve always said that the country would be far freer today if I was the only one with a vote. (Well, freer save for one glaring exception.)

        1. It probably would. I am not saying that women shouldn’t have the vote. I am saying that as a gender, women have a lot to answer for their performance since being given the vote. We need more women who value freedom standing up to the bullying nanny state women on the left and right.

          1. Women have no choice except to vote against this so called ‘freedom’, or else the big patriarchy like the Kochtopus will put women and children, and minorities back into chains.

          2. Suffrage allowed women to replace their dependence on lyin’, cheatin’, smokin’, drinkin’ husbands with dependence on the all-benevolent state.

            1. ^^THIS^^ Look at Life of Julia. And also, leftists have long had the goal of destroying the family. That makes women and children dependent on the state and reliable leftist voters.

              1. If you look at enough of the type of polls, like the ones included in this article, it’s very clear that single women are the group with the highest number of statists.

                If anyone wants to see where this is headed, take a close look at Sweden. Buh bye urinals, common sense, and freedom.

                1. Yes. And this is one time that there really was a conspiracy. Leftist intellectuals in the early to mid 20th century looked at destroying the family as a necessary step to establishing an all pervasive state. Leftists love single mothers because they are insecure and dependent on the state and have thus strove to create as many of them as possible.

                  1. And this was sold as “freedom”.

                    1. And this was sold as “freedom”.

                      It’s progress, comrade. How can progress not be freedom? Forward!

                  2. To be fair, the explosion in single motherhood happened after the creation of the welfare state. It’s not a one way street in terms of cause and effect

          3. I sort of wonder if, after things really go to shit, it won’t be rolled back. Presumably there will be a period where violence reigns, and women don’t usually have any real power in times like that anyway. After that ends and some sort of democracy arises, I don’t know that men are going to feel inclined to give up their power, especially if women/femininity are viewed as major contributors to the collapse.

      2. The nanny state began with suffrage.

        1. All lady voters want to do is hold the country to their bosom and protect it like the child it is. Is that so wrong? Men voters just want to throw the country to the wolves to fend for itself like in the movie 300.

          1. That pretty much covers it.

          2. Will there be scantily clad, ass kicking women this this 300-like world?

            1. They’ll wear whatever you tell them to wear.

      3. There definitely seems to be a tendency for the emotionally driven “think of the children” type of arguments to work better on most women than it does on men. Though I’m sure there are more and more effiminite hipster beta males types out there every day who think emote like women, which will ensure that things only get worse from here on out.

        1. But the existence of hipster beta males is the result of women taking over the educational system and much of the culture. Those hipsters were made not born.

      4. I’m not sure if this entire sub-thread is serious or not…

          1. As long as there aren’t any women around…

            1. There’s only one here, and Nicole isn’t here right now, so no collectivizing women witch hunts can start up, yet…

  7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..89116.html

    Samantha Power to t he UN. Obama loves homely, incompetent, female hacks.

  8. Clearly, these polls are sexist and must be taken down immediately, to ensure equality, and for the children.

  9. This “freedom” business is all well and good, as long as it is engaged in responsibly.

  10. My wife and I were recently discussing the ways that 3D printing could revolutionize the world. Labor costs would plummet, shipping costs would likely fall (since you just have to ship the raw materials, and those could probably be made in a low-labor factories close to the intended market), resource usage could go down (since recycling the raw materials could be pretty easy and cost-effective), and those are just the things I could think of. Imagine what the creative spirit of the whole world could come up with. 3D printing could have huge benefits for the environment and for reducing poverty, all while making us materially better off. Which means that it is only a matter of time until progressives drum up the scare tactics and try to regulate it to death.

    1. Labor costs would plummet

      3D printers are taking our jerbz!

      Right there’s that reason you were looking for, that the progressives will use. No need to look further. Although they will have lots more to choose from, like people printing parts that children can choke on and other stupid nanny state excuses.

      None of that will work, and 3D printers could become as common in homes, as PCs.

    2. Had the same discussion with my wife over the weekend. When I told her you could use 3D printers to print other 3D printers, a light went on in her head. She started to understand the concept of ‘the end of scarcity’. Coolness.

      1. of ‘the end of scarcity’

        Big government will do anything in it’s power to ensure that this is never achieved. Without scarcity, that they control, they could not exist.

  11. “Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to use this technology in their own homes?”

    Why the fuck are there any answers in the “no” column at all?

    Why the fuck is this a question at all?

    we. are. fucked.

    1. The concept of freedom has been successfully transformed from liberty to permission.

    2. Why the fuck are there any answers in the “no” column at all?

      The apparent answer: Women, old people, and Democrats.

  12. I recently finished Rule 34 by Charlie Stross. In his dystopia, 3d printers have to be licensed. Criminal enterprises make pedo real dolls for deviants. Feedstock is also tightly regulated because we don’t want you people making something like a gun, so the feedstock is restricted.

    I’m reasonably certain a whole bunch of people would be okay with this, in part becuase I live in a state that requires you to have a license to own laboratory glassware. Want an Erlenmeyer flask? Get a license. Want a 3d printer? get a license. I’m sure the 3d printer license will come with the ‘no warrant inspection of the premises’ the lab glass license comes with.

    1. God help us the day they can use three D printers to indulge in people’s sexual desire for children. When you think about it, that would be a great thing. It would let perverts be perverts without harming anyone. But no way would anyone think about it. It would all be emotion and all be about how this technology is causing people to think impure thoughts.

      1. On a less icky note. When inevitably, sexbots start rolling off the printer lines, soccer moms will go insanely hysterical, and armies of unemployed lawyers will line up around the block to argue for giving rights to the sex bots. The future is going to be sooooo fun.

        1. I think if things keep heading the way they are (especially looking at places like Sweden), there might end up being a literal war on women. Granted, that would probably be the shortest war in history.

      2. And the SoCons, big labor, and anti-growth crowd will all get together and sing Kumbayas

        1. Pretty much.

      3. I would go to work today, but I’d rather make out with my Marylyn MonroeBot

    2. I’m sure the 3d printer license will come with the ‘no warrant inspection of the premises’ the lab glass license comes with.

      Don’t all licenses come with that? That’s the whole point. Owning the object presumes guilt. The only way to prove your innocence is to submit to random searches.

      1. Most of them. My CHL doesn’t, but anything more involved than that does. It’s why I’ve discarded a bunch of business plans in my head. Anything that requires me to submit to unnannounced warrantless searches is a no-go.

    3. What? You have to have a license to own an Erlenmeyer?

      1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0018OL4A2/reasonmagazinea-20/

        Texas Residents: Under Texas State Law, this product requires a Precursor Chemical/Laboratory Apparatus NAR-120 permit to ship to a Texas address. After purchase, the seller will contact you via email to verify your permit. Failure to provide a valid permit will result in a cancellation and refund of your order.

  13. This survey shows that, in general, women are lame.

    I forget the comedian who said it, and this is some butchered paraphrasing, but I could be gay if it weren’t for the sex. Because otherwise you’re just hanging out with your friends.

  14. Bumper sticker: I oppose 3d printed guns, and I vote!

  15. And so what, 36 in 100 democrats don’t believe you should make shit in your home.

  16. And what’s going on here, 75% of single women oppose 3d printed guns, where only 58% of married women oppose.

    Can we conclude that people who get married feel friendlier to the concept of being able to defend yourself with deadly force?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.