Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon 625

colinneagle writes "A 3D-printed gun capable of firing multiple rounds may be unveiled soon. Cody Wilson, the 25-year-old founder and director of nonprofit organization Defense Distributed, recently told Mashable that the end product of Wiki Weapon, the initiative to create an operational 3D-printed gun, may soon be ready to unveil to the public. In a March interview with CNN, Wilson said he hoped to have a printable gun ready by the end of April, so his most recent comments suggest that he may fulfill that promise. While Wilson was sparse with details, he did tell Mashable that the prototype would be a handgun consisting of 12 parts made out of ABS+ thermoplastic, which is known for its durability and is commonly used in industrial settings. The firing pin would be the only steel component of the 3D-printed gun, which will be able to withstand a few shots before melting or breaking. Wilson reportedly anticipates making an official announcement soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, 2013 @01:02AM (#43552803)
    Like what was done in WWII?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten [wikipedia.org]

    This 3D printing hype is tiresome. Go ahead, get excited over blobs of plastic and twisting words to fit a bizarre notion that you can "3D print" the same items as mass manufacturing technology.

  • by zbobet2012 ( 1025836 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @01:05AM (#43552813)
    Increasing supply does not necessarily increase demand. It depends whether the good has a fixed demand (is price inelastic). Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.
  • by Kawahee ( 901497 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @01:11AM (#43552837) Homepage Journal

    ...unless he possesses a Type 7 FFL...

    One quick Google search later [arstechnica.com]:

    On Saturday, Defense Distributed—America’s best-known group of 3D gunsmiths—announced on Facebook that its founder, Cody Wilson, is now a federally licensed gun manufacturer and dealer. The group published a picture of the Type 7 federal firearms license (FFL) to prove it.

    “The big thing it allows me to do is that it makes me [a manufacturer] under the law—everything that manufacturers are allowed to do,” he told Ars. “I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport.”

  • by O('_')O_Bush ( 1162487 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @01:13AM (#43552839)
    No, making guns for sale requires you have a license. Making guns for personal use only requires no licenses at all, as long as they fall under ATF guidelines for weapons that don't need to be registered with the ATF (no assault rifles or SBRs).
  • by Robotbeat ( 461248 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @01:32AM (#43552933) Journal

    ...Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.

    Like hell it's inelastic. You may wish to /believe/ it's inelastic, and "everyone" you like and talk to at bars and hang out with may repeat this back to you as if it's irrefutable fact, but I guarantee you that having a conveniently lethal murder instrument helps quite a bit. We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.

    And we know that guns are even more commonly used for suicide; suicide is NOT inelastic to supply of convenient suicide methods, and we know this because the suicide rate in England went down dramatically when they got rid of town gas (i.e. partially burned coal containing high levels of carbon monoxide used as fuel in ovens and such, a very convenient suicide method). Having such an enormous glut of legal guns in our country also means the black market also becomes flooded with guns.

    Yes, there are some people who are hell-bent on killing and will attempt some way to do it, but a heck of a lot of people kill others in the heat of the moment or at least would be far less effective at it if they didn't have such an efficient killing instrument handy. It doesn't take a ton of foresight or coordination with others to shoot and kill a bunch of people with a gun. To do the same with another weapon, like a bomb, is actually a heck of a lot harder, as Boston vs Newtown shows. Or the recent Chicago five-fatality shooting spree (that sort of thing is pretty common... fatal shootings occur multiple times a week in Chicago).

  • by zbobet2012 ( 1025836 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @02:00AM (#43553045)
    Except banning guns in two cultures very similar to ours has had no effect on either of those from an empirical perspective. You are basically plato reasoning about the five elements right now. No matter how well you construct your thought process the empirical, statistical evidence disagrees with your result. I have linked you to the associated articles on the effects of the gun ban in Australia, please take the time to read them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, 2013 @02:21AM (#43553101)

    There's actually a fairly good bit of difference between the commercially available AR-15's and fully automatic versions. Different Bolt Carrier design, different trigger group, additional boring out of the receiver, and a part that does not exist at all in the semi-automatic AR-15. Conversion is nowhere near as easy as your congress critter or the media would have you believe. Sure, it can be done, but it's a LOT of work.

  • by realityimpaired ( 1668397 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:53AM (#43554529)

    By the standards of pretty much every other country in the G20 (including Russia), Obama is a conservative. He only appears a liberal when compared against your own right-wing.

  • by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:41AM (#43556021) Homepage Journal

    I've said it before and i'll say it again. The point of an armed populace isn't to fight an army at full strength. It's to be able to escalate domestic oppression to levels which make the government think twice, rather than sitting around and letting the secret police disappear people one at a time.

    It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak.

    -- George Orwell, The Atomic Bomb and You

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Working...