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."
Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
The people working on 3d printing guns are mostly interested in the idea because it'd be very difficult to regulate - they believe that access to firearms is a fundamental constitutional right, even a human right, that no government should be permitted to take from the people. The manufacture of guns by conventional means requires large factories and an organised distribution chain that make it fairly easy for any government to regulate, keeping the guns in the hands of only the police, army, and the criminals well-connected enough to access a shadowy underworld of illegal imports and stolen guns. Guns made with 3d printing would be accessible to anyone able to buy some perfectly legal hardware and download a model file.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
They require only generic parts that are obtainable off-the-shelf and needed in hundreds of applications - impossible to regulate (and also available as parts of generic appliances one can dismantle).
It's not about "do it without use of any factory products", it's about "do it with products the government is unable to restrict."
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. The same army that gets bogged down for a decade doing reconstruction after decimating another state about which we care not at all is definitely going to be willing to massacre its own population.
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.
And it doesn't take that much. The world economy is extremely sensitive. What do you think will happen to a nation's sovereign debt rating once it starts openly bombing its own citizens and industrial plants?
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4)
Have you thought of just not electing militaristic presidents in the first place?
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who you elect, it is not like they are running things anyway. The current President is in fact the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him because he was not George W. Bush. In fact, although I am generally conservative politically the one thing I said when President Obama was elected was that at least the war on our personal freedoms would end now. Boy was I wrong. The man isn't even a good liberal. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is neither a very good liberal nor a very good conservative.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4)
But everyone keeps telling me he is a SOCIALIST!
(and the great-grandparent is right on imo- armed populace isn't for a full on war, they'd lose- its so that the populace can escalate any oppression to levels that make it a non-option for the government)
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Funny)
The current President is in fact the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him because he was not George W. Bush.
That's a pretty good reason.
Then where the fuck is mine???
Re: (Score:3)
Obama is neither a very good liberal nor a very good conservative.
Turning into one helluva fascist, tho.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama isn't a "closet conservative" either; he is simply politically and economically inept. I think the only question left for historians is whether he is actually worse than Bush; he's certainly trying to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon was voted in on the promise of ending the war in Vietnam. Whoops.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
-- George Orwell, The Atomic Bomb and You
Re: (Score:3)
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.
And you will be obviously wrong again. How can a few handguns make the military take notice when a well armed (AK47/grenade launcher/mortar) militia (a dozen examples in the middle east) can't stop them? Having a gun makes you "feel" like you have some power, but it's not true. The military is accountable to the government and the government only. That government is more and more under the control of the corporations. Those corporations are international, even if they have American names. See the prob
Re: (Score:3)
And you will be obviously wrong again. How can a few handguns make the military take notice when a well armed (AK47/grenade launcher/mortar) militia (a dozen examples in the middle east) can't stop them?
And you would obviously be wrong. We are drawing down our troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan largely because its apparent that it is impossible to defeat the insurgents there without glassing the entire region. The insurgents have succeedeed in making the engagement far too costly in terms of finances and political capital to proceed. Our military has conceeded that it cannot control the region without more indiscriminant tactics that would never be accepted on the world political stage, and that the region
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A militia armed with AR16s wouldn't get very far either. Remember those videos from Desert Storm showing Apache helicopters mowing down Iraqi soliders from 3 miles away? That's your militia, excepting that their enlarged girth would make them explode in a more amusing fashion.
First order of strategic thinking is: don't accept the battle in unfavorable conditions. Don't keep your mind inside the box. Fighting attack helicopters from the ground, using anti-infantry weaponry, while they are flying is not something you (should) want to do. Perhaps Iraqi conscript had their orders to stand their ground no matter what. Militia doesn't have to take no such bullsh!7.
Correct way to do it is:
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Funny)
I want the 3D printed Abrams battle tank.
This reminds me of a story:
Lev was drafted into Russian army and sent out to fight on the front lines. The man in front of him was handed a rifle and Lev was handed afew bullets. They told him to wait until someone died and take his rifle.
So Lev made his way to the front line knowing that if he retreated, he would be retreating into a hail of bullets from the political officer. As soon as he crouched down in a handy shell hole a major attack commenced, Nazis were shooting at him and charging towards him. A comrade yelled out, "Just point your finger and say "Bang!"
With no gun, and no other hope, Lev pointed his finger at a Nazi running towards him and yelled "Bang!" The Nazi fell down, dead.
Lev was impressed and gunned down more Nazis with his finger, "Bang! Bang! Bang!".
Then he saw one Nazi headed straight towards him, moving in a jerky manner. He pointed his finger and yelled "Bang!" Nothing happened. He did it again, "Bang!" Again, nothing.
As the Nazi drew closer he continued to shoot ineffectually with this finger, "Bang! Bang! Bang!" Until the Nazi reached him and stomped him into the ground.
As Lev died, he heard the Nazi saying, "Tank, Tank, Tank, Tank, Tank, Tank...."
(better joke in person>
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've obviously never had your home broken into. You need to understand that both side manipulate and distort stats to basically feed you lies. In most cases where a home owner defends his home with a gun, he doesn't shoot anyone. A relative of mine had someone break into his home in the middle of the night. He stepped into the hallway with a 12gauge shot gun, saw the intruder in the living room and fired one round into the floor. The intruder ran. The action with the gun was never recorded by police.
As the saying goes, guns make all men equal. a 60yr old man with a limp and a pistol is just as likely to win a fight as an equally armed 20yr old intruder.
Re: (Score:3)
You've obviously never had your home broken into. You need to understand that both side manipulate and distort stats to basically feed you lies. In most cases where a home owner defends his home with a gun, he doesn't shoot anyone. A relative of mine had someone break into his home in the middle of the night. He stepped into the hallway with a 12gauge shot gun, saw the intruder in the living room and fired one round into the floor. The intruder ran. The action with the gun was never recorded by police.
So guns are to waved in front of people to scare them? That is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen modded up on this site. The only reason to draw a gun is to kill. You pull the trigger until you hear the click, as they say. Threatening with a gun is a sure way to turn a tense situation into a deadly one, and in any fight, the odds are with the professional. So your relative probably scared a teenage burglar away, when a guard dog or a proper lock on the door would have done the same thing. Or even
Re: (Score:3)
If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, the likely outcome is that he (likely a he) will trip over one of the sleeping black dogs scattered over the floor, break their leg and sue me.
Much easier than cleaning up shotgun mediated pieces parts.
I've got a number of guns, none of which are ready for instant action. That's what pepper spray (Bear spray in my neck of the woods). It's much easier for me to pull the trigger on 6 ounces of 10% capacin than an ounce of lead. Better patterning t
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are primarily weapons of offence.
They are not primarily defensive devices."
What then, is a good defense against someone who has a gun?
A bullet proof vest may stop a body shot from being fatal, but it won't stop him shooting you in the haed, or hitting a leg or arm that may prove fatal or at least maim you.)
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, accidents happen. How about that. I don't know if you are aware but people die every single day from some of the most bizarre accidents imaginable. Owning guns isn't so much about being safe as being free. I know you don't get it and that's okay. I fully support your right to be unarmed.
Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice bullshit story. My gunsafe unlocks with a 4 digit code. I can release the gun in under a second and it drops open to a 45 degree angle grip out so you're ready to fire. It's loaded and ready to go.
Guns require a commitment by the owner. My kid doesn't touch guns. Period. If he sees one, anywhere, he tells an adult immediately. If you don't take your kids to swimming lessons and they fall in a lake (a much more likely scenario than them finding a gun) they are likely going to die. Gun safety should be a part of any kids upbringing just like swimming. And just like swimming, just because you don't own beach front property doesn't mean you should skip the training. If your kid hasn't had proper gun safety training, YOU are putting your child in danger, not the gun owners of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the hard truth: someone's irresponsibility is not my fucking problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
People have been making receivers on CNC machines for years. It's not a particularly difficult part to manufacture, compared to something like a barrel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the difference between semi and full auto is placement of one hole.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).
I don't really see a problem. It just needs a label like "Warning: This item is not a weapon and is for novelty purposes only. Aim away from face".
Part of me likes the idea of a handgun that only lasts 3 shots and on any of those 3 shots may explode and remove the face of the person holding it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).
Yeah, that's what people have been saying since the whole idea of printing guns came up.
It's about to come to fruition in spite of your protestations. Just stop blabbering about how many copper units it has to withstand to be equivalent to a nine mil. The favorite weapon of an mob hit men is a 22 caliber.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the size of the plastic. I assure you a 9mm round embedded in a 1mx1mx1m of ABS with only canals for the bullet and firing pin will not make the entire block of plastic explode.
I imagine the design could be quite viable as a revolver where the whole drum with rounds and barrels built in is replaceable and each round has its own single-use barrel. Reloading involves replacing the whole drum.
What I find would be quite difficult though is getting your own rounds made from scratch / from generic par
Re: (Score:2)
There are glass-filled nylon resins, for instance, that can be injection molded and have the same strength as aluminum. We're not 3D printing with that stuff, though.
Going to be a bit longer (Score:3)
To 3D print the cartridges.
Re:Going to be a bit longer (Score:4, Insightful)
that's why you use caseless ;P
Re: (Score:2)
Cartridge != case
Cartridge = bullet + case + propellent + primer
A caseless cartridge still needs bullet, propellent, and primer, none of which is presently 3D printable.
Profits (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Gun industry already has many dozens of small companies that manufacture guns - for ARs alone there is more than a dozen of producers. I'm not aware of any deliberate lobbying efforts on the parts of major manufacturers to change that. But, arguably, if they wanted to do so, they already had an opportunity in form of AWB - seeing how most small fish dabble in precisely the types of guns that would be banned under that legislation, while the big guys (Remington, Winchester, Colt, Ruger, S&W etc) have hal
Re:Profits (Score:5, Insightful)
A 3D printed pistol is a great novelty item, but what are you really going to use it for? In a self defense situation, are you going to trust a weapon that's never been fired before? I ran about 300 rounds through my new Sig P226 before I was comfortable believing that I could hit what I was aiming at.
He's crazy but... (Score:2)
While the guy is a little nuts (ok, maybe more than a little) he does actually have a point. Gun control in the age of 3d printing is going to be virtually impossible. In the next decade we'll move from plastics to metals and from niche to mainstream for 3d printing, any 15 yr old with an internet connection and a (no doubt cheap) home printer will then only need to buy bullets to arm themselves to the teeth.
Politics are always behind the curve, it would be nice
Re: (Score:2)
FYI I'm Australian [youtube.com] and lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.
Umm, no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGq-VWQCEG4 [youtube.com]
Here's the history of what happens to innocent people when gun control is enacted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-lNiIDsFM [youtube.com]
You might also Google the US "Battle of Athens".
And, why do supposedly "progressive", forward-thinking people want to undo black civil rights in the US and give the KKK a retroactive victory in reinstating, after the huge civil-rights battle it took to abolish them, the infamous "Black Laws" from the early-1900s that forbid blacks from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That you might actually believe your laughable, ridiculous argument is frightening.
By your reckoning, Australia should have turned into a fascist state by now; let me assure you, it hasn't. Those who hold the power do not become totalitarian by nature simply because there is less chance of armed revolution.
I will, however, counter your argument as simply as it ever could be by pointing out that regardless of how many rifles, handguns, etc. you own, you will never be able to defeat a military that has the ab
Re: (Score:3)
20 years is the blink of an eye. Time remains to see what the result will be. I will say this: if you have no leverage, you really will be fucked if there ever is a war.
I will, however, counter your argument as simply as it ever could be by pointing out that regardless of how many rifles, handguns, etc. you own, you will never be able to defeat a military that has the ability to wipe you off of the face of the earth with a few keystrokes.
That's a pretty bold statement. Just because you hear people say it a lot doesn't make it true. The world has a long history of the little guy winning in wars. No weapon trumps manpower. Evenmoreso, because a weapon can be used by whoever holds it. It supposes that in a hypothetical revolution the revolutionaries would not be able to s
Re: (Score:3)
By your reckoning, Australia should have turned into a fascist state by now; let me assure you, it hasn't.
Better ask the aborigines, they may have a slightly different view from yours. How's that right to freedom of speech and the press? Oops. Fascist states (and almost every other authoritarian regime) don't allow people they want to oppress to own firearms. Can I legally buy and possess an AR-15 or Glock 23 in Sydney as a regular citizen?
I will, however, counter your argument as simply as it ever could be by pointing out that regardless of how many rifles, handguns, etc. you own, you will never be able to defeat a military that has the ability to wipe you off of the face of the earth with a few keystrokes.
A significant portion of the military will join the citizens. Besides, how long has that Afghanistan thing against those goat-herders with AKs been going on? Can't they find
Re: (Score:2)
lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.
Can you explain then why your gun control laws have not had any meaningful reflection in your homicide rates, or your general violent crime stats?
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html [aic.gov.au]
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html [aic.gov.au]
3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon 33 (Score:4, Funny)
- accompanied by the words "Give your fucking wallet..."
3d printing (Score:2)
"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."
yea but its not thin slivers of plastic that happened to surface bond to a cooling surface, yea it seems strong to your hand, but not to any mechanical force, its actually quite brittle
but yay 3d printing with weedeater string!
Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (Score:3, Insightful)
This man is single-handedly ruining 3D printing for EVERYONE, just because he's a gun nut obsessed with firearms. He's pushing into a gray area and setting a very early precedent that will impact the availability of 3D printing for the rest of America.
Cody Wilson is just what you'd expect from a 25-year old, gun nut, pothead, government conspiracist. He's afraid of having his weapons taken away, he's afraid of having his weed taken away, and he's afraid of his rights being taken away. His entire life is ruled by fear. So how does Cody respond? He perverts a revolutionary technology to make _more_ fucking weapons with them in violation of the law.
Fuck Cody. This is why scientists and engineers fucking hate people that take what they pour their lives into and deform for their own fucked up needs. When the 3D printer was invented people envisioned a technology that could help, that could make development rapid, that would improve our lives. Now Mr. Wilson has ruined all that and made it a tool to create weapons.
Cody Wilson is a fucking asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe in gun rights (or at least don't consider them to be a concern), then surely there's nothing wrong with what Cody is doing, and you should rather go after the people who would take away your ability to 3D-print things for the sake of restricting guns.
if you believe in gun control, then you should be thankful to Cody for demonstrating how 3D printing is highly relevant early on, enabling regulation before someone actually designs and prints a gun for themselves and goes on to enact Newtown 2.0
Re:Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (Score:4, Funny)
What he's doing doesn't really matter. It could just as easily be someone printing dildos in Alabama or cloned Games Workshop miniatures. At some point, someone is going to use 3D printing to do something the government really doesn't like, and... well, I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going to happen.
Personally, I'd prefer that the government gets a bloody nose going after the second amendment nuts than quietly shutting down sex toy creators.
It's the prefect gun. (Score:2, Interesting)
It can only fire "a few shots" before needing repair, and the muzzle velocity is probably low enough that even those are unlikely to be deadly. If a nutcase in my neighborhood was getting a gun, I'd want him to get this one.
Stricter control on real guns, and 3D-printing for the masses seem to be a good way forward.
I know what I'm thinking. (Score:5, Funny)
I know what I'm thinking. "Did I fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is plastic gun, and if it backfires it will likely blow my head clean off, I've got to ask myself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do I, moron?
I want a 3D printING gun (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
get a 3D printed silencer to go with it?
I'm waiting for 3D-printed House Representatives. One more dimension than the present models.
Re: (Score:3)
I had no idea 3D printers were that loud.
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except I don't think murder is as price-inelastic as you think. Only a small fraction of gun murders in the US are in, e.g., carefully planned heists by criminal masterminds who will acquire guns regardless of cost for a pre-planned murder. Gun deaths overwhelmingly come from heat-of-the-moment domestic disputes, drug-addled petty criminals, super-depressed suicide victims, etc.: folks not utilizing near-unlimited resources and careful long-term planning skills. If a (cheap, ubiquitously available) gun is on hand at the minute of bad decision making, it gets used; otherwise not.
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:5, Interesting)
I should be clear, I am not a "gun rights" advocate, but from an economics perspective it is rather obvious that murder is price inelastic. The vast majority of murders are infact crime related. The remander are largely crimes of passion for which any serviceable weapon can and will do (suicide falls under this as well).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do.
Any weapon will inflict injury. Guns make it especially easy to rapidly inflict death (point and click!), even for people who would not be mentally prepared to keep hacking away with a knife once the blood starts spurting, or would be restrained by others around.
70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
And the availability of guns makes murder easier and more efficient, even in gang violence situations. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than a gun --- no quick drive-by pot-shots at kids wearing the wrong colors, you've got to s
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
ZERO massacres since 1996.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:4, Insightful)
I initially thought you were talking about gun shows when you said "ZERO massacres". Then I saw that you'd qualified that with a year, so you weren't talking about gun shows.
Funny how in all those gun shows full of guns and people who love guns, there's never a mass shooting. It's almost as though it's not possible for an individual to successfully massacre large groups of heavily armed individuals.
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do. A gun being present generally only changes the cause of death.
If the party doesn't have access to a gun, there may well be no "crime of passion". It's really a lot harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than it is to squeeze a trigger. You may well stop at some point short of completion and say, "shit, I didn't mean to do that".
This is evidenced by the fact that in Britain and Australia gun bans [wikipedia.org] have had no effect on either suicide or homicide rates when isolated against already prevailing national crime rates and trends.
From that article, "cut firearm suicides by 74%... no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise". Other studies found no effect or were
Re: (Score:2)
drug-addled petty criminals
I really, really, really want to see stats on how many gun murders are associated with drugs. I expect that upward of 95% are. If we would just end the war on drugs, we'd stop nearly half of all gun deaths. The other half being suicide.
But the "right" doesn't want to admit the war on drugs is killing people (and they don't really care since most of them are poor with no one to speak for them) and the "left" doesn't want to admit that ending the war on drugs would substantially reduce gun violence because
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...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 pre
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Prevent suicides by making it unaffordable for people to conveniently kill themselves. Now that is a real winner for society. We can take solace in our belief that we have done all that we can to prevent suicides and we can avoid all those unconformable discussions about the role that mental illness and social injustice play in people that act against their most basic instinct.
Re:Supply and demand. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hardly a valid criticism of my post.
You know, I can't solve all the problems in the world in a single post. Of course socioeconomic factors are huge, but it's possible to, you know, look at an issue and try to evaluate it critically without throwing up one's hands and saying, "welp, since this is only part of the problem, it's obviously not worth anyone's time..."
ANY single factor you try to adjust or optimize will be incremental. It takes a bunch of things working together to solve this problem of murder in this country. You're not helping any by criticizing a valid observation just because it isn't all-encompassing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the argument has ever been that less people will die if more responsible citizens have guns. Rather, I think the argument is that there will be less defenseless victims for the uncontrolled criminal savages to prey upon.
Firearms can be an equalizer which enable ordinary people to defend themselves from thieves, thugs, and tyrants alike.
Re: (Score:2)
The death penalty is typically an externality not factored into the cost of killing. Few murderers think ahead so much; or, if they do, feel certain they won't get caught (so severity of punishment, life imprisonment or death penalty, doesn't matter when mentally multiplied by a 0% estimate of getting caught). Whether they can get a gun or a bunch of booze for $20 *right now* does factor into the economic choices they make (and if the gun is $500, the booze probably wins). Now, when you increase the chances
Re: (Score:2)
Make the ability to protect yourself cheaper, easier and more available, and more people get protected.
"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed. You simply shift from people losing their wallets to muggers, to engaging in gun fights with muggers. You also teach the muggers to shoot first and rob the body later.
Not sure why you want rapists and other criminals to have easier access to victims?
The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members (who already have plenty of "access" to the victims), not some scary looking dude running out from a dark alley shouting "I'm gonna rape you!". And when your pushy creep boyfriend learns you keep a gun in your purse
Re: (Score:3)
"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed.
Since they would in turn be killing other people, you are in fact reducing the overall number of people killed.
Not sure why you want more people dead?
The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members
And that makes it less useful to stop them with a gun because....
Yeah, that worked out real well for protecting MLK.
It did for his goal, which is what mattered. The civil rights movement wasn't about a man, it was about people - many
Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (Score:4, Informative)
One quick Google search later [arstechnica.com]:
Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter...he's got the license, and is likely going to sell them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. You think you live in a safe, sane, rational world? The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.
The Sherriff of Nottingham and Ghengis Khan didn't need guns to exercise lethal force.
Hammer, knife, iron pipe, strangulation, pushed from a roof-top.
I would rather be robbed by a guy with a gun than a guy with a tire iron. The guy with the gun probably won't shoot if I cooperate, besides it is noisy and he can flee without worrying I would follow him.
The guy with the tire iron might crack me over the head before making his getaway.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy with the tire iron might crack me over the head before making his getaway.
The guy with the gun might shoot you in the head before making his getaway ...for the same reasons.
I would rather face off against a guy with a melee weapon than a guy with a gun, because then at least I stand a chance to retaliate (successful or not), simply because it's somewhat harder to dodge/parry a bullet than a melee weapon.
Also, robberies generally rely on surprise, and no robber will allow you to pull your own weapon, so carrying any kind of weapon for self defence is pointless once the robbery is
Re:Teh hell (Score:5, Insightful)
No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.
This isn't about "need" this is about being inevitable. 3D-printed weapons are the inevitable result of improving 3D printer technology. No amount of idealism about what should and shouldn't happen will change that.
Everything in life is a trade-off. If we don't want 3D-printed weapons, the only way to effectively stop that is to ban 3D printers. Is that a price you are willing pay? There really is no other choice. You can outlaw 3D printed weapons but as long as the printers exist, people are going to be printing weapons.
Just look at how well the MAFIAA has done trying to stop piracy, it is basically the same set of trade-offs. If you want personal computers and an internet, piracy is going to happen. If you want good 3d printers and an internet, then most forms of physical contraband are going to be 3d printed. Weapons, bongs or whatever. You want 3D printers, that's the price.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bad analogy: copyright infringement is illegal, building a gun isn't.
Maybe not in the US, but it is in plenty of other countries.
Even so, building certain kinds of guns in the US is illegal. Try building yourself a real machine-gun. It ain't practical to build one, but even if you could, it would be illega.
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, according to US law, you can build a semi-automatic gun without any sort of license and registration, but you can only build an automatic gun with a license and if not sold to the government it must be destroyed.
The law is probably much more restrictive in other countries, where owning any sort of weapon requires registration.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want personal computers and the internet, child porn is inevitably going to be distributed too. Should we stop trying to control that?!
Yes. Prosecute the creators because they are the ones harming children and the creation of child porn has nothing to do with computers or the internet. But trying to stop copies of what's already been done from propagating is fruitless and wastes resources that would be better spent on stopping the people who actually harm the kids.
Crime in general is the inevitable result of society. That doesn't mean we should give up trying to minimize it.
"Crime" is whatever we say it is. Harm is what we need to be working to minimize, but the harm caused by 3d printing of weapons is small compared to the harm caused by the mea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
this doesn't actually affect your ability to make an usable firearm(google for history of zipguns, or even m3 or the british ww2 mp) nor your right to make one(getting a license in usa isn't a big deal). point being that you already have the means to "casually" produce something that shoots and that these guys are just trolling for publicity in order to get money and fame.
buying abs+ fdm machine btw costs more than buying a semi-automatic rifle(to which you could print an extended magazine though with a che
Re: (Score:3)
No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force
Regardless of whether one needs such an ability, the means to exercise it will always be available in society - a human being can be killed with bare hands, if the attacker is sufficiently determined. This, in turn, creates the actual need to be able to exercise lethal force in self-defense against others who would initiate such force against you. To deny that is to deny that people have a right to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.
I'd be curious whether your opinion on this would change were the lives of your family being threatened by brutal savages before your eyes. Perhaps with the lives of those you love being taken before your eyes, you would come to see that there do exist circumstances where a peaceful, law-abiding individual must use deadly force to defend himself and other peaceful, law-abiding people from criminal savages that prey upon the vulnerable.
Don't take this to mean I wish any harm to come to you or those you love;
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's a crypto-anarchist and honestly believes that doing this showcases what a joke popular conceptions of "gun control" are. You can watch a documentary by Motherboard about him and this issue on YouTube, search: 3D Printed Guns (Documentary)
In a world where 3D printers will conceivably be a commonplace household item, gun control via the old practices simply will not work.
It also draws attention to the limitations of how freely information is distributed and exchanged across the 'net.
While I agree this is
Re: (Score:2)
It's because it's a flamebait topic that's more likely to get more views and angry comments (and therefore views).
Re: (Score:2)
Why do 3/4 of the 3D printing articles here focus on guns? Guns are nice and all ...
But is this really the only use for a 3D printer?
Please no more eiffel tower pics either. k thx bye ...
the most present use I've had for mine has been printing ass vases and some joining pieces for decorative furniture.
but the reason why there's so many 3d printed gun articles about this one guy is two fold, first the media "journalists" don't know shit about history(about how people used to fuel a resistance with bike shop built guns and gangs used to use home built zip guns in fifties) and who think that their readers are different than the readers of the 423432 other news sources.. so they think a cool te
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding ammo is easy [gunbot.net]. It's finding cheap ammo that can be problematic.