Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Download This Gun' — 3-D Printed Gun Reliable Up To 600 Rounds

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-wouldn't-download-a-car dept.

Technology 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The way things have been going. (4, Interesting)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054477)

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:The way things have been going. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054533)

I wouldn't be surprised either. Guns are not toys, and building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.

Re:The way things have been going. (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054563)

>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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054647)

>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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054779)

He will be a Darwin Awardee Nominee.

There, FTFY.

Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (4, Informative)

NameIsDavid (945872) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054887)

Failure doesn't stem only from bad design. What happens if there's a slight clog in the 3D printer's extruder that creates a bubble or weak spot hidden within a part? A larger company engineers the manufacturing, not only the part, to be reliable, and does quality-control checks along the way as well. The equipment for such checks isn't practical for a consumer doing a one-off.

Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054957)

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.

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054569)

I wouldn't be surprised either. Guns are not toys, and building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.

Why? The part they're printing has no high-pressure parts or other parts that could fail in catastrophicly dangerous ways. The rest of the gun is pretty standard, commercial metal parts.Their previous experience has shown that the lower usually breaks at the part where the stock screws in as there's a moderate amount of stress there.

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

LiENUS (207736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054627)

that part where the stock screws in is the buffer tube extension, if it breaks in the wrong way at the wrong time the bolt can fly out under substantial pressure in a catastrophically dangerous way

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054657)

All-metal weapons sometimes catastrophically fail too... just sayin.

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054913)

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 common that it's no longer noteworthy. I suspect that it's the former as I've never heard of it happening in real life.

Re:The way things have been going. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054961)

Yeah but those are usually tested by the manufacturer under various conditions and often to failure, so the rate of "sometimes" is usually known and acceptable to most reasonable people.

In contrast these "yeehaw cowboys" appear to be conducting their tests on youtube ;).

Re:The way things have been going. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054583)

I've often wondered why countries trying to develop nuclear weapons don't suffer from more "accidents."

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054671)

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. (3, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054879)

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:The way things have been going. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054745)

because countries developing clandestine nukes aren't usually making press releases about their accidents,

Re:The way things have been going. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054829)

coughcoughSTUXNET that is all

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054921)

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:The way things have been going. (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054651)

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:The way things have been going. (2)

maz2331 (1104901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054723)

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. (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054755)

Hogwash. You could build an AR out of dried Play-doh, and it would be perfectly safe until it fell apart. The only parts of an AR that need to be strong are the barrel, barrel extension, and bolt. 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.

Darwinism To The Rescue (1)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054797)

BAM!

Re:The way things have been going. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054547)

to far but maybe some FPMIA or gitmo

Re:The way things have been going. (2)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054571)

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.'

...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 accident may come in the form of prosecutors.

Up next (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054527)

Download this nuke. Just add plutonium and some conventional explosives.

Note to CIA: Get ahead of the game and make a design that doesn't work, and see if rfe North Koreans launch duds at South Korea.

A/C for a reason. Here's hoping "they" haven't cracked my proxy network.

Re:Up next (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054889)

...ee if rfe North Koreans launch duds at South Korea.

Seen that movie [wikipedia.org]

sound a idea for a in the line of fire 2 (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054539)

sound a idea for a in the line of fire 2

DIY Fuel Air explosive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054541)

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.

Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive4 boxes of democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054609)

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

I forget the order but ammo is definitely last. We haven't needed in to protest our government with armed rebellion on a large scale in America in over 100 years - whichever was later, the end of the Civil War or the last large *just* rebellion/uprising/attack be Native Americans against the Feds.

Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054665)

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 (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054959)

...the right plastics...

C4?

Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054667)

Kill people just because you can is not a healthy attitude.

Tell that to Obama and the immoral losers who fly the attack drones.

Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (5, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054771)

"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:DIY Fuel Air explosive (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054967)

There isn't any place to go if you want to escape.

There is always a place where nobody can get to you.. but there's no coming back.

Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (5, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054911)

"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.

Just what we need right now... (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054543)

Someone whose stated goal is "evading and disintermediating the state" being tied to gun ownership and production. 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. Wilson, please do all of us gun owners a favor and shut up. Feel free to keep working on 3D printed firearms-to me they are no different than purchasing an 80% receiver and milling the rest yourself- just don't talk.

Re:Just what we need right now... (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054603)

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:Just what we need right now... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054653)

[...]

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:Just what we need right now... (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054655)

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 shotgun doesn't fire, and the rifle, while it fires, I purchased more for its historical significance as a standard issue turn of the century American military rifle. The last 2 I use for hunting. Tell me, what possible reason do you see why I should get rid of these guns, 2 of whom are not even in working order? To me they are functional/non-functioning art, tools, and a way to connect with history.

Re:Just what we need right now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054773)

In Europe people do hunt. They need to demonstrate proficiency with guns, an actual will to hunt and that they can store guns safely. Then they can have guns for hunting and if you can't meet those prerequisites you shouldn't be hunting. I imagine that you can keep non-functional guns as historical artifacts too, as long as you can demonstrate that they are no longer dangerous. Your concerns are not real.

Re:Just what we need right now... (-1, Troll)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054663)

From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy.

Yeah, seems pretty crazy to not willfully allow yourself to be setup for enslavement. I'm sure if everyone owned guns, things wouldn't have gone any differently for the Nazis or Milosevic or any other modern tyrannies..

Re:Just what we need right now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054803)

From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy.

Yeah, seems pretty crazy to not willfully allow yourself to be setup for enslavement. I'm sure if everyone owned guns, things wouldn't have gone any differently for the Nazis or Milosevic or any other modern tyrannies..

Random civilians with guns wouldn't have done anything in those cases. The problem in those countries were not a lack of guns, it was a social problem with those cultures.

Re:Just what we need right now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054821)

Except in actually practice the thing that kept Iraq and Afghanistan from being enslaved by American imperialism was mostly improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. The rifles and pistols didn't make much difference....hard to take out a tank with a rifle, much less hard to blow the fuck out of it with a strategically placed bomb. Also, one of the greatest modern freedom fighters, Timothy McVeigh, struck a great blow against federal tyranny using explosives. The people who try to fight the government with rifles are quickly killed and forgotten. Does anybody even remember the name of that freedom fighter who tried to free LA from the grips of the fascist pig police? He lasted a week and now he's already forgotten. Believing guns will keep you free is a trap the government wants you to fall into. Explosives line the road to freedom, my friend.

Re:Just what we need right now... (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054903)

things wouldn't have gone any differently for ... Milosevic or any other modern tyrannies..

You know nothing about the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Both the Bosnians and Kosovars were heavily armed. It didn't at all help in convincing the Serbs to stand down without a fight. Instead, lots of people on their side got killed, and they were only able to hold out because international support came.

Re:Just what we need right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054969)

Yeah, seems pretty crazy to not willfully allow yourself to be setup for enslavement. I'm sure if everyone owned guns, things wouldn't have gone any differently for the Nazis or Milosevic or any other modern tyrannies..

Sure, tell yourself that.

I'm not the one that is treated like cattle every time I want to board a plane.

A man with a gun is not going to stop the government and the government is not going to stop a unified but unarmed population.

Re:Just what we need right now... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054669)

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:Just what we need right now... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054691)

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.

Re:Just what we need right now... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054751)

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.

Posting as anonymous because I am just too lazy.

I am tired of this argument. I lived in EU, Poland. Poland has some of the strictest gun laws there are and, naturally, only Police, government and thugs have access to guns. Well, I lied. My dad was a hunter and he had access too, but the sheer amount of paperwork made the experience rather painful.

While the statistics may show that the crime rates are relatively low, a simple conversation with a citizen of Poland will tell you otherwise. Official crime is low, because a whole lot of crazy shit is not being reported so that numbers look good. The old fashioned, numbers do not lie, people do.

For the record, I do not completely disagree with your point. I am just annoyed every single time people say US and EU as if they were all one coherent, stand alone entity when they are obviously not; especially EU.

Re:Just what we need right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054949)

For the record, I do not completely disagree with your point. I am just annoyed every single time people say US and EU as if they were all one coherent, stand alone entity when they are obviously not; especially EU.

What else do You expect from Unitedstatesofamericans, who don't know geography and think Europe is a country?

Which Europeans? (2, Informative)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054763)

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:Which Europeans? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054973)

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:Just what we need right now... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054817)

Americans are quite tame compared to Europeans' history of murdering each other and committing world-wide genocide.

Re:Just what we need right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054607)

Yep, and then it turns out that many of the same crowd are hanging out talking about the way civilization has gotten worse, and that they have to take steps to fix things before it gets worse.

Because they're really concerned for making the world a better place. And that means dealing with all the criminal scum around them.

Yay self-righteousness! It justifies a multitude of sins.

Re:Just what we need right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054631)

You needn't worry so much about groups of gun-nuts and anti-guns getting the wrong kind of attention. From outside the USA you all seem pretty weird.

The reason the rest of the world doesn't worry about these printed toys is simple. No ammo.

Re:Just what we need right now... (2)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054685)

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 (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054741)

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... (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054737)

Protect the Second by ignoring the First? Lovely logic process.

Re:Just what we need right now... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054837)

Where did I say anything about stifling his 1st Amendment rights? Remember "speech" is more than just words: he even says it himself, the product is the message (also known as "symbolic speech", look it up). I'm simply saying he needs to use discretion with regard to what words he uses given the propensity of those for gun control to venture into the realm of hyperbole and false association (remember the NY sex offend-pistol permit holder online map?) when referring to gun owners and gun ownership.

I precisely echo your sentiments (0)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054739)

Just thought I would let you know that you aren't the only one who would prefer if this guy kept a lower profile.

I also wanted to lend a modicum of support—having a positive perspective on all our civil liberties isn't considered acceptable in this echo chamber of hoplophobes, as is amply evidenced by the other replies you have garnered so far.

Re:Just what we need right now... (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054963)

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%.

They are not evading any laws (4, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054551)

They are simply doing what the law allows them to do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Re:They are not evading any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054681)

They are simply doing what the law allows them to do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

They are trying to incite histeria among 2A opponents which can do nothing but net legislation (at a minimum, proposed) to further restrict what we as "free people" are allowed to do.

Re:They are not evading any laws (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054705)

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:They are not evading any laws (3, Insightful)

ALeader71 (687693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054895)

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 assault weapons. 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. The ban wouldn't stop gun manufacturers from producing semi-automatic rifles. The Tech-Point Model 995 is an assault weapons ban legal semi-automatic rifle. Identical to an AR-15 in operation, but different in appearance. The TEC DC9? Same thing.

The fact that you can "print this gun" proves that a ban doesn't mean the end of the semi-automatic rifle. Any gun is a machine constructed from a piece of machined steel with a few springs and pieces of plastic to make it into an operable weapon. 3D printing is neat, but you could "print this gun" using an auto-lathe for most of the machining and 3D printing for the non-working parts. You could set up shop in Mexico and "print" AR-15s all day long. Ditto full-auto M16s. Sneak them across the border and you're in business. This is something the Democrats aren't talking about. Instead they're focusing on magazine capacity and how the gun looks. Then again, DC politicians aren't the best and brightest people. They are merely popular, wealthy, and easily manipulated.

Re:They are not evading any laws (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054897)

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 unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Oh good grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054553)

No one 3D printed a gun here. Someone 3D printed one simple part of a gun. It's not like people haven't been able to make entire guns from simple parts since WWII.

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

Can we please stop this absurd "we 3D printed a car because we 3D printed the radio knob"-style of thinking??

Re:Oh good grief (4, Informative)

muridae (966931) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054619)

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.

Re:Oh good grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054679)

Exactly. This is only 3D printing by some seriously bad faith interpretation of words.

ownership (2)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054809)

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.

"Gunning" for the state. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054833)

I find it funny and a touch ironic that the state he's rallying against has no problem with him making weapons against them by private individuals.

Difference is (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054643)

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:Difference is (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054729)

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".

Re:Difference is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054767)

So the only way you can call this "3D printing of a gun" is by legal gymnastics. There is no 3D printing of a complete working gun from one single device called a "3D printer".

Legally it IS a gun (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054831)

In US firearms law it is the receiver that is the identity of a gun.

Reminds me of a quote from Chris Rock: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054559)

You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars five thousand dollars per bullet You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

If things cost more than they are worth... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054611)

If you make something artificially high priced, someone will supply it at a lower price. If the price is high due to high quality or branding, you get cheap knock-offs and trademark infringing. If the price is high due to taxes or legality you get very bad elements involved in the supply process...

Re:If things cost more than they are worth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054899)

Tax them. Then, once the bad elements get involved, redirect the war on drugs and make it the war on bullets. Bullets tend to be worse for the consumer's health than drugs, anyway.

Re:Reminds me of a quote from Chris Rock: (3, Insightful)

LiENUS (207736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054659)

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:Reminds me of a quote from Chris Rock: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054827)

I think the point was that perhaps if they can't control the production / manafacture of the firearm they will move on to stricter controls for ammunition...

I TOTALLY WOULD (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054567)

YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A GUN

Download is better than faxing (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054697)

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*

Re:Download is better than faxing (1)

updatelee (244571) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054783)

All Im saying is that one time I tried to fax a gun... My fax machine was never the same again.

UDL

Really Slashdot??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054581)

I know you like 3-D printing and all, but publishing this story is throwing you hat in with the gun nuts. ... oh but wait, we don't make the news...

Raise a Fuss (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054591)

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 in both feet with a shot to the head in good measure. 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? It is next to impossible for the bulk of the public to sense the shifting sands beneath their feet. I feel that the next thirty years will see more changes in our lives and social structures than in all of human history combined. Future shock may no longer describe the situation. Maybe we can picture it as future shock from a very potent, very large, high voltage, power line with no fuse, contacting our scalps while we stand in a pool of liquid mercury.

Re:Raise a Fuss (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054855)

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.

The next wave - me109 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054599)

Google "MIT 4D printer"

Refuting himself in one sentence. (1)

pesho (843750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054601)

'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?

So some manufacturing is actually happening (1)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054637)

So some people are still being entrepreneurial and are still manufacturing something in USA and the /. crowd is yelling *in loud shrieking, Anonymous Coward voices* - fuck you, you subversive, you are committing a thought crime a speak crime, you are expressing yourself individually while probably coming up with a way to build a business, making you totally uncontrollable by government that wants you on a subsidy, so that you'd support all gov't nonsense spending programs with stolen, borrowed and fake money.

Subversive = a normal, thinking, free individual.

This is *not* a "3D printed gun"!!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054639)

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
- The chamber
- The upper reciever
- the bolt
- the bold carrier
- the gas tube ...etc.

The confusion might be from the fact that (according to US law) the serial numbered "reciever" (what that part is varies from one weapon to another) is what the ATF considers to be "The gun" (everything is a part). For example, if I want to buy a serialed AR-15 lower reciever, I go to a firearms dealer, get a background check, etc...everything else that makes up the gun can be purchased online and mailed to my home no problemo.

Re:This is *not* a "3D printed gun"!!! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054733)

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... (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054699)

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 (3, Interesting)

LuxuryYacht (229372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054709)

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:This Won't Work Well With FDM/FFF (1)

Radtastic (671622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054805)

I'm surprised that no one has made (or at least, made public) an AR lower using Direct Metal Laser Sintering [youtube.com] . As others have mentioned, the stress on the lower receiver isn't terribly great, so I would think DMLS lower's would perform fine?

Re:This Won't Work Well With FDM/FFF (2)

LuxuryYacht (229372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054883)

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.

i think these gun printing guys are govt spooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054717)

...working to get 3d printing banned before it has a chance to take off...way too many industries are threatened by this technology.

Much Ado About Nothing (1)

HangingChad (677530) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054721)

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.

Kids building guns. (1)

PortaDiFerro (1719902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054759)

That sounds troublesome if any kid can build a working gun unsupervised. I'm sure cartridges and bullets come next.

Yeah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054849)

Can't wait for the new school shootings!

Time to shift focus? (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054917)

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 question.)

But guns don't kill people: fast-moving bullets kill people. You're not going to regulate chunks of lead, but it seems not unreasonable to regulate the bits that explode, e.g. gunpowder and the bullets that contain it. I find it rather odd that I can walk into any gun store and buy explosives, in bulk, with few if any questions asked.

It seems to me that the notion of regulating the lower receivers has been a poor fit ever since milling machines became common, and 3D printers seem to make it completely pointless. Is it too late to try to regulate the explosives, or should we simply admit that it's time to wear Kevlar every time you leave the house and be continually prepared to pick off that guy behind you in the grocery store line before he pops you?

First person to shoot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054933)

So Cody won't mind being the first victim of this I assume?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?