Gold appears to be rarer based on what I saw on wikipedia, but I could be wrong.
But in either case, rhenium is hard to extract, refine, and work. Gold is easy to extract, refine, and work, so its value has never been dependent on technology. An excellent example of this is aluminum. It was very expensive, even though it's very common, due to refining costs. That's why the Washington monument has an aluminum tip. To be a good money metal, the production cost can't include any significant amount that technology can improve. The costs should consist of: find it (hard), mine it (fairly simple), melt it (easy), and shape it (easy).
Gold, silver, and platinum are the money metals because they have properties that lend themselves to coining, but there might be some convention to it (palladium would be a good choice too, but it never caught on for whatever reason).
I would think that someone who has claimed "history" and "reality" as sources would be aware that since humans began recording history, gold has remained fairly steady in its value compared to other valuable goods. And that in times of crisis (financial, political, social, etc.), people have sought refuge in gold.
You do make a good point that gold is only valuable because it's rare and people seem to want it, but that desire seems consistent enough that it's the most stable way to store wealth that humans have figured out yet.
Remember Sophie Scholl? I don't think she consented...or the Jews...or the gays...or the gypsies. A scared person nodding along in agreement to the gun-toting stormtroopers is not consent.
The "loosening" of gun control in 1938 added more groups to the prohibited list, including Jews. Additionally, it limited firearms ownership to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit . How many dissidents' gun license applications do you think the Nazis signed off on? Zero? Nada? None? The only "loosening" was that loyal nazi party members were able to get permits more easily.
And I clearly was talking about 3D guns, not 1D guns (How would that even work?). But hey, since you weren't able to refute the idea of armed thugs being more afraid of armed citizens than unarmed ones, it's much easier to pretend.
If Ghandi had been able to print guns, maybe the Indians would have been able to eject the British sooner, and with fewer innocent Indian deaths.
Mother Teresa would not have printed anything to help people. She spent most of the money she raised on building convents, not on the poor. Mother Teresa wanted the poor to suffer, because she thought it made her closer to Jesus.
I have a great suggestion for using 3D printers to promote peace: build guns, since the worst violence of the 20th century was from authoritarian governments against their own disarmed populations. Nazi, Commie, Fascist, etc. thugs are a lot more hesitant to go into a town, if they're not sure who in the town might have a gun, or worse, if they suspect everybody in the town has one.
The NRA is not a "gun manufacturer lobbyist" group. It's a club of shooters. Most of what the NRA does is training for skills and safety. One of the group's branches (the NRA-ILA) lobbies for gun rights. The gun manufacturer lobbyist group is the NSSF.
But hey, anti-gun idiots like you haven't been concerned about factual accuracy in the past, so why start now?
Yeah, because humans are horribly evil creatures who murder each other at every opportunity.
That's why gun homicides are down 49% and violent crimes are down 72% since 1993, while gun ownership has remained steady (and concealed carry has skyrocketed).