1. The controversy is good for sales. The kids want the taboo stuff.

2. It allows him to set the line for "too extreme" as one step past GTA, meaning that he sells the most taboo title available.

You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.

The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.

Ask the Canadians how many times they used their gun registry to successfully trace a gun used in a crime (hint: it's zero, that's why the provinces are trying to get out of it).

Gun registries and serial numbers aren't for preventing, or even investigating, crime. They're for tracking down guns, when the government decides the guns are a threat to its power.

The First Amendment doesn't allow anything. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it guarantees government cannot interfere with rights that preexist government.

But yes, that would be a protected publication. He never challenged it. The designs were already out there (so he won), and it would have been expensive. I believe they used the same ITAR crap that used to prevent us from exporting encryption. But the courts ruled there that printed copies of encryption algorithms are protected expression, so this should be as well. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over publishing firearms plans.

And finally, when have you ever known the federal government to abide by the Constitution?

It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.

This device shows the government that they can't maintain the absolute control they want to. So either they get even more totalitarian (and we overthrow them with our 300,000,000+ guns), or they scale it back (and we win peacefully).

We have about 350M guns. We have about 330M people. Apparently wherever you're from, they don't teach math skills.

3.6 murders / 100k is pretty damn low. But most of those are drug crime related. Our rate drops by over 50% when not including drug crime, as I said. Apparently wherever you're from, they don't teach reading skills.

The FBI crime statistics from 1993 to 2013 show a clear drop in US violent crime and murder rates, while we've dramatically pushed back gun control. Apparently that's nonsense to you, because it doesn't support your preconceived notions. Just go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la...".

Here's one. And there are plenty more out there. The Clackamas mall shooting was one. The US media doesn't cover them as much, because the body counts tend to be low, and they don't fit the narrative of "guns are evil".

It's not a good idea to lie in such absolute terms, when the internet can so easily prove you wrong.

...so what ya be needing a gun for?

How about self defense against against a nut job on a killing spree? The least successful spree killers in the US have all been stopped by an armed civilian, not a government employee.