'Download This Gun' — 3-D Printed Gun Reliable Up To 600 Rounds 582
An anonymous reader writes "We've talked previously about Texan gunsmith Cody Wilson's efforts to create 3-D-printable parts for firearms. He has a printed magazine that can withstand normal operation for quite a while. But he's also been working on building parts of the gun itself. An early version of a 3-D printed 'lower receiver' — the part of the gun holding the operating parts — failed after firing just 6 rounds. Now, a new video posted by Wilson's organization shows their design has improved enough to withstand over 600 rounds. Plus, their test only ended because they used up their ammunition; they say the receiver could have easily withstood a thousand rounds or more. Speaking to Ars, Wilson gave some insight into his reasoning behind this creation with regard to gun laws. 'I believe in evading and disintermediating the state. It seemed to be something we could build an organization around. Just like Bitcoin can circumvent financial mechanisms. ... The message is in what we're doing—the message is: download this gun.' A spokesperson for the ATF said that while operating a business as a firearm manufacturer requires a license, an individual manufacturing one for personal use is legal."
The way things have been going. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy met with an unfortunate accident.
There has been a lot of that happening recently in the gun-rights subculture.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
to far but maybe some FPMIA or gitmo
Re: (Score:3)
...and if the Powers That Be read that and say "oh noes another open access manifesto [slashdot.org] but for pew-pew things! also he likes bitcoins!", then the acci
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy met with an unfortunate accident.
There has been a lot of that happening recently in the gun-rights subculture.
LK
[citation needed]
...or did you expect to lob your nut-case conspiracy theory in here and not get called on it?
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy met with an unfortunate accident.
There has been a lot of that happening recently in the gun-rights subculture.
LK
Hahahaha, yeah, the liberal mafia is coming to get ya. BOOGIDY BOOGIDY BOO~~~.
Anything to keep people paranoid and scared and above all else, buying more guns they don't need.
Having said that, I expect this to be banned, with the NRA's support. Not because of safety regulations or what have you, but because the NRA's purpose is to get people buying more guns, and if you can print a gun for effectively nothing, they're not going to be all that enthused about the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
"There has been a lot of that happening recently in the gun-rights subculture."
"Gun rights" is not a "subculture". It is part of our Constitution.
You might as well say there is a "free speech" subculture or a "trial by jury" subculture.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
>building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.
That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.
The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
>building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.
That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.
When new models are being developed and tested at Colt, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Marlin, Glock, etc .... they put the gun in a "vice like" stand, behind a barrier, and fire it remotely - especially when testing high pressure rounds that you can't buy (some folks do load their own with higher than standard loads, but usually they do their research and have a pretty good idea on how far to push it. Usually.) in order to test the gun - if it survives the high pressure round then it will survive the standard one.
So, the point is, folks aren't taking unnecessary risks in gun development and I would assume that someone with the knowledge and intelligence to create a gun from a 3D printer would have the sense not to take unnecessary risks.
Now of course in this big World and with the Internet, we will see some asshat who will print a gun using sub standard material, load it up with high pressure rounds, turn the camera on, and create a Fark headline.
He will be an outlier.
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
You just keep believing that only big companies can do things, and that people are incapable of doing anything for themselves...
And we wonder why we have such a nanny state.
There was this book. Some guy called Adam Smith. (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to anything involving large amounts of resources (such as building and testing significant numbers of prototypes) they pretty much are.
I don't think that even in the good old days you're herp-derping about people made their own muskets. Of the minority that did some didn't make their own clothes and bread (because they were professional gunsmiths) and the rest blew themselves up.
Re:There was this book. Some guy called Adam Smith (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course there were. Don't be silly. Most guns were made by a single guy in a shop. It's all about having the right tools. Personally, one of my hobbies is trying to build everything, at least once. Guns are not complicated, and one of the first things I did myself. I've blacksmithed my own kitchen knives (a lot harder than the gun) I've built a truck from parts out of a junkyard. I've replaced broken parts on that same truck by putting them in a sand mold to get their shape and then smelted them myself. You can do anything you want if you're clever, have access to the internet and are persistent.
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Informative)
You could implement a sophisticated qc scheme with a webcam and opencv. This technology is pretty new, but moving very, very fast.
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm in a firefight, the last thing I want is my weapon "harmlessly" disabling it's function.
When you're in a firefight? So this is something that happen to you regularly? Remind me never to be around you, if chance ever comes up.
Re: (Score:3)
When I'm in a firefight, the last thing I want is my weapon "harmlessly" disabling it's function.
use AK-47/74 then
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would rather go into combat with a 3d printed lower receiver than a butterknife.
Re: (Score:2)
True. It needs virtual testing before it gets printed.
If the machine can be modelled and all the math is done, weak spots in the designs should be detectable and the design updated. Why do they have to print it and test it? Sounds unsafe.
Re: (Score:3)
You still can't make the parts that actually carry the pressure of firing with 3D printing techniques. Barrels and bolts will still need to be machined from quality alloy steel, and rifling a barrel requires really specialized equipment as well.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
You still can't make the parts that actually carry the pressure of firing with 3D printing techniques. Barrels and bolts will still need to be machined from quality alloy steel, and rifling a barrel requires really specialized equipment as well.
First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.
Second, barrels and bolts aren't controlled items, so as long as one person can make them, they can be sold to other people.
Third, it's not nearly as hard as you think to make these items. Rifling a barrel has been done for 200 years. If you think that an individual today can't acquire the same quality of equipment that was use to do the job 200 years ago, you're just not thinking straight.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.
Generally, making a strong steel or steel alloy requires that it be tempered after hardening, but that needs to be done before you cut precision features like rifling into them. So, 3D printing is unlikely to work in that situation although you could certainly make some assault shotguns. People can and do make their own firearms now using machining tools that anyone can buy, but they are expensive and take skill and thus don't offer the untraceable proliferation problem that is the main issue posed by 3D printing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Closer to 500 years.
There were rifled matchlocks made for the Austrian emperor in the 1490-1510 time period.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:4, Interesting)
A preferred source of material for rifle barrels is used truck axles, since it's stress relieved. http://books.google.com/books?id=_ykDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]
Rifling tools are pretty straight-foward --- cutter style tools for this were developed in the 15th century.
Darwinism To The Rescue (Score:2)
BAM!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when is the last time you've heard of that happening to a commercially produced firearm? The only failures I hear of are cases where the firearm jams or accidentally discharges. Having the entire firearm blow up in your hand or have projectiles coming out of places other than the barrel is not something that gets any attention. And the accidental discharges are pretty much always the result of somebody handling the firearm in a way that's not safe.
Which suggests that it likely doesn't happen or is so co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably do, but they don't get notice. An accident in nuclear weapons development doesn't result in a nuclear boom - not even if the cause is sabotage. Just some scientists or workers getting their face burned off or a lethal dose of radiation. Easily covered up.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:4, Informative)
That reminds me of this episode of king of the hill where he said that the US government was putting too much pressure on the Russians because they didn't realize that the Russians were incompetent. I happened to read shortly afterwards about this:
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-25.html [darwinawards.com]
Nobody heard about it til way later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a nuclear weapon has an accident in that fashion, there's usually not much to cover. You get a large explosion and nuclear contamination. But, nowhere near the size that you would get from a nuclear detonation. Nuclear weapons are incredibly simple in some respects, but the tolerances to get the reaction going are amazingly tight. Most likely if you get it wrong, what happens is about the same as a large dirty bomb.
Re: (Score:3)
Until you drop it on the ground... (Score:3)
There's a reason for that "You can tell it's Mattel" joke.
I've seen A1s with broken handguards and stocks from being transported neatly packed inside a crate, in the back of a truck, mostly over asphalt-paved roads, to a distance of maybe a dozen kilometers.
And those were real, honesttogod, real gun factory produced and tested M16A1s.
Everything else that makes up the system is there for operation and function, rather than strength. No one is talking about printing the critical parts.
It's a gun, not a club.
Every part needed to make it operational IS critical.
sound a idea for a in the line of fire 2 (Score:3)
sound a idea for a in the line of fire 2
Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy. We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
[...]
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
yes, that's what we do here in the USA. But don't worry -- the treatment will, no doubt, cause an unforeseen problem that we can then treat with even more crazy ideas.
Sort of like keeping a pet lion to keep the neighbor kids and their dogs off your lawn. What could go wrong?!
Re: (Score:3)
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
My 1863 Lorenz Rifled Musket isn't useful to defend from robbery or murder. Neither is my Snider Conversion Shotgun (also known as a Zulu Shotgun). I guess my 1904 Springfield .30-40 Krag rifle could technically be used for that, but it is rather impractical. The same goes for my .30-06 hunting rifle and my 80-90 year old side by side shotgun that I use for bird hunting. Why do I need these guns? Well, the first one was passed down through my family since the 1800s. The second 2 are antiques: the shot
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK you can own guns like that. I can't remember the exact details but they either have to be modified so they can't be used or you have to obtain a license to hold them as antiques. You can actually own a gun here (many farmers have them), you just have to have a good reason for needing one and show that you will keep and use it responsibly.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Informative)
From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy.
That's alright; to us, you look crazy for allowing guns to be banned.
At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
Oh ho ho. That's a good one. Are you really that ignorant of your own history, or do you seriously need a list of examples where it actually happened? I'll give you the first one for free - France, 1789.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
The you haven't been studying europe's history too well. Hell, even in the late 20th century what you said is untrue. There is so much blood in europe's soil it makes america's domestic problems look like a papercut.
Which Europeans? (Score:3, Informative)
The UK has the most stringent gun laws in the EU (though Germany is close) and even there you may own rifles and shotguns. Belgians and the Czechs have very active firearm cultures that are not related to hunting. I know Switzerland is not a member, but they are in the region and they also have such a culture. The remaining states mostly have hunting related firearm cultures from what I have read.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying we don't have gun crime, I'm saying we have vastly less of it than the US does.
Apparently pointing this out gets you moderated "troll". That's one of the reasons why the gun lobby gets such a bad rep. No engagement or discussion, just "you are a troll/anti-American/a coward".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> At no time in our history would guns have helped us
>rise up against the government either.
Whereas, we actually pulled that off . . . against a European overlord.
And two of the three North American attempts since then have been successful . . . (California & Texas, yes; Confederacy, no).
hawk
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before I say anything else, I want to say that I do agree with your concluding point, and I'll come back around to that later.
At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
There'a an argument to be made that the U.S. itself contradicts that statement, given that it was a collection of European colonies that broke away from European rule, largely through the use of firearms. Had it not broken away, wouldn't it still be a part of European history, at least in a broader, cultural sense, if not in reference to the literal continent?
Ignoring that, however, your comparison is a rather useless one anyway, since European history is long. Throughout most of European history, people were capable of rising up against their governments with either homemade or repurposed items. I.e. The disparity between the government's equipment and the people's equipment was small enough that the people were always a concern, and we're hopefully all aware of at least some of the rebellions, revolutions, and coups that make up the fabric of the continent's past. Guns wouldn't have helped because the people always had a means of rising up, and frequently did just that!
In contrast, at the time of that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, that was no longer the case, so it's no surprise that their authors ensured that the people of the nation would always have a right to the same tool that the government could use to subjugate and oppress them. After all, that's exactly what they had done just a handful of years prior when they broke free from the people they viewed as oppressors.
Of course, there's a question today of whether or not firearms are still relevant in a world where fighter jets, cluster bombs, and ICBMs exist. Firearms are becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the disparity is quickly reaching the point where citizens would need to be given far more advanced weaponry than any reasonable person would suggest if they would want to have a hope of overturning their government. Even so, given enough citizens and enough guns, I do think it's possible, so I still see value there.
All of that said, I agree with your final idea about treating the symptom, rather than the cause. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to have some major societal changes take place, though I doubt that all of my ideas would be in line with those of a typical European. As you, however, I would love to see a reduced need for guns and a reduced perceived need for guns. Achieving both would likely lead to a reduced presence of guns, and, to me, that means that we need a government that protects our rights above all else and a lower violent crime rate. The latter has already been taking place, with rates dropping pretty consistently and quickly for most of the last two decades. Even so, the government's decision to engage in security theater and fear-mongering (terrorists everywhere!) have helped to spread a culture of fear that's encouraging people to arm themselves against threats that they believe are both internal and external. That needs to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Informative)
I hear this argument a lot of but it doesn't make sense. You seem to be arguing that knives and swords would not be enough to protect you from enslavement, you need guns. Yet I expect you wouldn't want people owning hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, tactical nuclear shells etc. Are guns really the perfect balance of deadly enough but not too deadly to protect citizens, even when the government has much better ones and things like bullet-proof tanks to send at you? Do you really think you could take on the US government and win?
BTW, every time a tyrannical government has come to power in western Europe it was voted in by the people, so we have never needed to defend ourselves from our government.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW, American citizens in some states can and do own anti-tank rifles and even artillery. It's not really illegal under federal law, just very tightly regulated (and, of course, extremely expensive).
If you haven't seen any of the "Big Sandy Shoot" videos on YouTube, go and watch some [youtube.com].
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the question of could we win, in a word yes, but it's a blanket question and a blanket answer when there's a LOT of nuance involved. We aren't LIKELY to win unless things have gotten VERY bad, but it's certainly a decent possibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy.
I'm sure if everyone owned guns, things wouldn't have gone any differently for the Nazis...
You're right. Nothing would have changed. If every man and his dog owned a gun they would still have voted in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (The Nazi Party as it's commonly called), Hitler would still have been elected Chancellor, and the rest deals with the history of wars between nations, not between nations and their people.
You seem to forget that the Nazi Party was one the biggest political parties in Germany's history, had over 800000 card carrying members and that the war was a battle b
Re: (Score:3)
I picked PERCENTAGES.
That is how you compare crime rates between countries with different populations.
Picking absolute numbers is meaningless unless the two countries have the same size population.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, let's just pick and choose the freedoms we want to let others defend. That'll work great.
I assume you've never heard:
First they came for the ........
It's kinda sad how hard it is to vigorously defend our rights.
Most of the bill of rights state things in terms of "Congress shall make no law" but yet Congress spends a lot of time trying to make rights restricting laws anyway.
First they came for the (Score:2)
first they came for the ellipses
i do not use ellipses so i did nothing
then they came for capital letters
i do not use capital letters so i did nothing
then they came for lowercase letters
and between me and e e cummings we were too weak to stop them
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plays right into the gun-control crowd's narrative of how gun owners are all crazies and trying to subvert the government or think a civil war is about to happen.
"Plays into"? I would have said supports the idea 100%.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not evading any laws (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They are simply doing what the law allows them to do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As an aside, I'll note that something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be ethically questionable. "Not forbidden by law" and "not wrong" are categories that generally have some mutual overlap, but should not be conflated. From a technical standpoint, I believe sociologists and psychologists refer to individuals who define their personal morality solely by what is or is not illegal as "assholes".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, this is well within the limits of the law. In fact, this guy is attempting to obtain a federal firearms license. He isn't subverting the government. He's wriggling through the holes in the legal system to do what he wants. One of these 'wants' is to show that the government isn't quite as high and mighty as many believe.
For me, this is further proof that a new "assault weapons ban" will be as useless as the previous ban. Gun related hommicides didn't decrease, only those involving so-called assau
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't include the full-auto Uzis, AK-47s, and other military carbine rifles that the ban didn't cover because they were never available for public purchase in the first place. The last man portable fully automatic weapon sold to the public was the Thompson sub machine gun. The current debate has nothing to do with military rifes. Instead it's about semi-automatic rifles which look like miliary rifles.
Wrong. Up until 1968, it was legal to import a full auto for civilian ownership, and up until 1986
Re: (Score:2)
Opinions vary considerably on what is 'ethical'.
This is why we have a process called 'rule of law' which constrains these opinions.
The body of legal thought in the United States includes a basis on natural law:
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien
I TOTALLY WOULD (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A GUN
Download is better than faxing (Score:2)
Someone tried to fax me a gun but it came out flat and my 3-D bullets would not load.
I bet if i download it though the inter-tubes it won't get squashed. *note to self - do NOT compress the download or the gun might be too small for my bullets*
Raise a Fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
I do get it. The public mood concerning guns is highly amplified at the moment and nothing would draw attention as quickly as a gun that could be printed easily at home. Beneath that may reside an unusually powerful change in the very basics of society as we know it. Obviously if one can print a gun then one could print almost everything else. Need a bicycle, a car or a new home? Then turn on the printer. The entire monetary and investment systems now in play would be shot not only in one foot but
Re: (Score:2)
The notions of employment, investment and even concepts of ownership could be highly effected. After all, why bother to own a bicycle when a printer can whip one out for you as needed?
For the foreseeable future, anyway, the answer would be: because the bicycles available in the shops are both cheaper and higher quality than anything you could print out yourself.
3D printers are currently able to make plastic toys; maybe someday they'll be able to do more and cost less to operate, but that's only speculation at this point.
Refuting himself in one sentence. (Score:2)
'I believe in evading and disintermediating the state. It seemed to be something we could build an organization around.Just like Bitcoin can circumvent financial mechanisms.'
What's this? Exercise in syllogism?
This is *not* a "3D printed gun"!!! (Score:2, Informative)
To those who aren't AR-15 enthusiasts:
The only 3D printed part is what is referred to as the "lower reciever" (the part that appears white or clear in the pics/vid). While printing this part (which can last 600 rounds apparently) is an achievement, it probably isn't even among the top 10 parts which experience the most stress...come back and talk to me when they can print:
- The barrel ...etc.
- The chamber
- The upper reciever
- the bolt
- the bold carrier
- the gas tube
The confusion might be from the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
Which just means that even if he is successful in his aim, it just means the government would need to extend gun control restrictions to also cover some other part of the gun. Something either too fiddley to print (the bolt, trigger assembly) or exposed to pressures and temperatures higher than a printed part could take (the barrel). It's a doomed aim, unless he can come up with a design made entirely from 3d printed parts and general-purpose plumbing and construction supplies.
Not proved reliable up to 600 rounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
they just tested a single beta copy by firing 600 rounds and it did not fail. There's a difference.
Which is not to say this isn't an impressive achievement from an engineering standpoint, or that it doesn't have important policy implications. It's just that I deal with that particular conflation of a successful test with statistically meaningful proof every day. My teenaged son will do something stupid, and when I say that he'll break his neck if he keeps doing it his response is always, "Yeah, but I *didn't*."
This Won't Work Well With FDM/FFF (Score:4, Interesting)
The resolution and materials commonly available for FDM/FFF are too poor for application like these. The quality of the print is just too poor and they are only using p400 ABS [aetlabs.com] for material. That is why their prints aren't very durable.
SLA [google.com] however offers the resolution and the materials to produce parts that are strong and reliable enough for these types of rugged applications. Some photopolymers for SLA are 100-1,000 x stronger than the ABS they are using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They probably don't have access to an SLS printer which will work for an application like this along with the right alloy.
SLA [google.com] may be used to print the part in one step or print a mold that may be used for lost wax type casting [wikipedia.org] of several alloys durable enough for an application like this.
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:2)
You can make a suppressor with a few hand tools and a clean oil filter, but you'll still get hard time getting caught with it.
If assault-style weapons are banned and someone prints one, it will be just as illegal.
Time to shift focus? (Score:2)
If the object is to limit firearms deaths, is it time to shift from regulating the weapons to regulating the explosives, such as gunpowder and ammunition?
I never understood why the ATF defined a "gun" in terms of its lower receiver. I assumed that it was because such a thing was difficult to make outside of a big gun factory, which would provide a decent point of control for ensuring that firearms would be sold only to people for legal purposes. (Yeah, that didn't work either, but that's a different questio
Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns aren't hard to acquire now and even with decent gun control they probably won't be that hard to acquire in the future.
The problem with the US (well a problem for me) is the gun culture where having a gun is considered cool and manly, as a result lots of people have guns and feel normal keeping them and using them. Change the culture so gun ownership is weird, so that when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence. I don't see 3D printed guns as being a big factor either way.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.
None of my guns were designed to kill people. My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing. That is what guns are designed to do: hit what the person is aiming at. If the person is aiming at another person, then the gun might kill them. But that is the fault of the person firing the gun, not the gun itself. It is the person killing the other person. I do not and would not ever own something designed solely to kill someone.
Re: (Score:3)
If guns were not designed the kill people then the bullets would be made of rubber or it would fire some other non-lethal projectile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet [wikipedia.org] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simunition [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'"
-- Mao Tse-Tung
"The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."
-- Alan Keyes
Re: (Score:3)
MY guns are "designed" to protect my family from said nutjob hell bent on ending my life and raping my wife. If YOU happen to tell a legal firearms owner that they own a device designed to "kill people", well it's no damn wonder you're getting an odd look. I'd look at a homicidal maniac in an odd way too. They're the only other people on this earth who have that mentality, and go out and prove it.
In other words you do keep the gun for killing people, in self-defense. It might not be its design, but it's your purpose with it. The gun is a good equalizer in that it doesn't matter who fires it, but it doesn't change the imbalance between attacker and defender. Unless you catch him by surprise - in which case he probably wanted to steal a few valuables not kill or rape anyone - they have the choice of time, place, body armor and weaponry and you whatever you happen to be carrying. And usually they'll be
Re: (Score:3)
MY guns are "designed" to protect my family from said nutjob hell bent on ending my life and raping my wife. If YOU happen to tell a legal firearms owner that they own a device designed to "kill people", well it's no damn wonder you're getting an odd look. I'd look at a homicidal maniac in an odd way too. They're the only other people on this earth who have that mentality, and go out and prove it.
In other words you do keep the gun for killing people, in self-defense. It might not be its design, but it's your purpose with it. The gun is a good equalizer in that it doesn't matter who fires it, but it doesn't change the imbalance between attacker and defender. Unless you catch him by surprise - in which case he probably wanted to steal a few valuables not kill or rape anyone - they have the choice of time, place, body armor and weaponry and you whatever you happen to be carrying. And usually they'll be more trigger happy than you are, since they know they're the bad guy and not some drunk SOB who picked the wrong driveway and is going to flee the scene afterwards anyway.
OK, I don't know what in the hell you are talking about here. First he's a non-violent criminal who only wants a "few valuables", and yet you paint him as a trigger happy murderer (assuming someone who only wants valuables is armed and mentally capable of murder, a strong assumption), and then you find the logic to follow that up with claiming guns do not change the imbalance in that scenario strictly due to the element of surprise? Yes, I suppose mental stability, sobriety, a blinding flashlight, dogs, a
If things cost more than they are worth... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A single bullet can easily cost you the chair, or life in prison, or millions of dollars. Gun control is keeping your finger off the trigger until you are on target and are sure of your target and what is beyond it. Killing innocent bystanders already costs far more than five thousand dollars. Taking your advice on self defense and safety from a comedian is.... well comedic.
Re:Oh good grief (Score:5, Informative)
According to the ATF, the lower of an AR is 'the gun'. Transfer of that part alone requires paper work; buying it requires a background check and can only be sold in a private transfer or by a licensed dealer. All the other parts of the AR platform are add ons, and require no paperwork before purchase. Yes, that includes the upper, the barrels, even the trigger assembly. So no, in the eyes of the government, this is a "3D printed gun".
It's also not that big of a deal. 3D mills have existed for a while, and any machine shop with one could turn out a milled aluminium lower in about the same amount of time. The ATF has rules on who can do that, and what you can do with it after it's made. They seem not to be too worried about polymer lowers.
ownership (Score:3)
If you own the mill you can make yourself a firearm without consulting the ATF as is mentioned in the summary. 3d mills are considerably more expensive than 3d printers which is the only reason this story is a story at all.
Difference is (Score:2)
The part they printed is the part that legally makes it a gun and whose manufacture is highly regulated.
If there was a "legally key part" of a car whose manufacture was highly regulated, then you would have a good analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that's true. But the corrallary of that is that then the parts that make it an assault rifle aren't really parts of the "gun".
Legally it IS a gun (Score:2)
In US firearms law it is the receiver that is the identity of a gun.
Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just waiting to see this ad: "Level 10 city blocks. Costs very little with parts you can purchase at Home depot. Download the plans online."
Kill people just because you can is not a healthy attitude. Neither is making it easy for others to do it on a whim.
We should not have to make everything you should not do illegal.
So the question is how, short of making it illegal, do we stop cretins like this who think they have the right to do this sort of unhealthy social engineering?
If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it. It's okay to think subversive thoughts but there are lines.
While I wouldn't do what he's doing, I'll fight for his right to do it. I have no idea what killing people because you can has to do with being able to print your own firearm. Wake me when you can print your own ammunition too.
First off: plans for DIY fuel air explosives are already available online.
Second off: none of this stuff can be done "on a whim". First, you need the right 3D printer, then you need the right plastics, then you need the plans. Finally, you need to know enough about firearms to be able to print and assemble and test the thing. You're also going to need to get some ammunition.
We should never attempt to stop cretins from doing things we don't like -- we SHOULD make our society one in which doing things that are illegal is seen to be unappetizing.
Personally, I have fewer issues with someone providing plans to print a gun than I do with the entertainment industry -- every day on my way to work, I have to pass an ad for a TV show that depicts an attractive young woman in front of a chart of mugshots with "killed" stamped over them -- and huge letters saying "Murder is only the beginning." Think about that for a moment. This poster is MUCH more likely to result in someone committing a violent act than someone being able to make their own gun. I guess gangs and crime syndicates might like these guns because they're untraceable, but they've already got untraceable guns - being able to print and toss will just allow them to stop robbing people for their firearms and will deflate the prices for unmarked guns on the black market -- both of which are good things.
Of course, the first time a printed gun is proven to have been used in an actual crime, things will get nasty.
Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it."
There really aren't any places to flee to any more. Most governments are turning oppresive, corrupt and are trampling civil liberties. Computers and networking are making it extremely easy to make a police states these days. When East Germany and the U.S.S.R. did oppresive police state it was man power intensive, its much easier now. There is almost no effective defense of civil liberties being mounted any more. Once your government stacks the courts in their favor there is almost no peaceful path to oppose stripping your civil liberties. The U.S. can and frequently does use "state secrets" provision to shut down any challenge to its power. Y
ou can pretend ballot boxes in the places that have them will make a difference but they seldom do.
In particular, the reach of the U.S. government has extended to most of the nooks and crannies on the planet, with the possible exception of places like China, North Korea and Iran which are sufficiently oppresive without any help from the U.S. The U.S. has military bases and FBI offices in a staggering number of countries. They've used rendition all over the world to snatch people, sometimes innocent people, off the streets to torture . With drone bases in the middle of all of the hard to reach places the U.S. will soon have total global coverage and the ability to assassinate by drone anyone, anywhere, with no judiicial oversight.
Its the down side of living on a small planet with no frontiers left and a civilization with accelerating technology development.
There isn't any place to go if you want to escape.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you name some of the countries and we will evaluate how really free they are and how insulated they are from the reach of the U.S. government.
Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (Score:5, Informative)
"If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it."
Unless the public have lethal force options there is zero reason for the State to respect their will. "Changing" the State was done by the American Revolution.
Sometimes the only way to remove human obstacles is to take their lives, and under some onerous situations that is reasonable and good.
If you will not kill to be free and free others, how dare you say you deserve freedom you won't fight for? Fighting for freedom includes embedding the practical capability for revolution in the hands of the public. The Second Amerndment codified that RIGHT. The People have Rights under the Constitution, hence the wording.
Re: (Score:3)
The armed forces and police, directed by the government, probably won't permit a violent revolution to take place in this modern day, they are too well organised
That's why you shoot the politicians, not the police.
Re: (Score:2)