Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Defcad.com Wants To Be the Google of 3D-Printable Guns

timothy posted about a year ago | from the no-takebacks-either dept.

Politics 225

Sparrowvsrevolution writes that at this year's SXSW, Defense Distributed founder Code Wilson has announced a for-profit spinoff of his gun-printing project, from which people will be able to search for and download gun-related CAD files. "Though the search engine will index all types of files, Wilson says he hopes the group's reputation for hosting politically incendiary content will mean users trust that it won't censor search results. 'When we say you should have access to these files, people believe we mean that,' says Wilson. 'No takedowns. No removals. We'd fight everything to the full extent of the law.' Along with the SXSW announcement, Wilson also released a provocative video where he lays out the plan for Defcad.com and criticizes gun control advocates and 'collusive' 3D printing companies like Makerbot."

cancel ×

225 comments

My first thought (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about a year ago | (#43148511)

is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

Re:My first thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148845)

I could very well be wrong but I'm pretty sure his name is pronounced "Co-Dee". It's just a stupid way of spelling a normal name.

Re:My first thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149671)

Yeah I was going to name my kid Shithead (pronounces SHI-teed) but the wife objected

Re:My first thought (3, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43148931)

is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

Wishful thinking on behalf of the submitter - TFA has his name spelled correctly.

Re:My first thought (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#43149095)

is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

Maybe they meant Cody?

really (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148515)

frost piss

LOL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148549)

What he's really saying:

"Please ignore that I have a tiny penis!!" *waves gun around*

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148885)

Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.

Retard.

Re:LOL (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#43149587)

Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.

So, Anonymous Coward, if it has nothing to do with your small penis, if all your guns were bright pink you'd be perfectly find with that?

Re:LOL (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | about a year ago | (#43149669)

Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.

So, Anonymous Coward, if it has nothing to do with your small penis, if all your guns were bright pink you'd be perfectly find with that?

You don't have to have a small penis to not like bright pink as a color, or a penis at all. :P

That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them? Old men?

Also, bright pink is a really impractical color for a gun but it'll do the job no matter what color it is.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149771)

That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them? Old men?

Having a proxy for a big dick is as good as having the real thing and has nothing to do with the size of any existing one, when the bearer wants power (perceived internally or otherwise). To be true, your argument should read "if people only own guns because they wish they had a longer penis, why don't *all* women own guns?" And the answer to that, is the root of this debate (of gun control for safety vs gun rights for freedom).

Re:LOL (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43149871)

Actually a distracting color like pink can buy you some time to get the first shot.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149721)

My guns are primarily for hunting, some species are colorblind but others are not. I don't own "shiny" guns and prefer some camo pattern.

In case you care, both I and your mom are happy with my penis size.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149833)

Sorry, brah, but she fakes it.

Re:LOL (0, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43148911)

What he's really saying:

"Please ignore that I have a tiny penis!!" *waves gun around*

It's always been my contention that any male who makes derogatory statements about another man's genitalia is either projecting, or a closeted homosexual afraid of their own feelings.

So... which is it, Chief?

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148953)

I'm not closeted. I love fucking the tight little assholes of gun owners. Their teenie weenies are sooo cute, too.

Re:LOL (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148977)

False dichotomy.

Why can't it be both?

Re:LOL (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43149281)

False dichotomy.

Why can't it be both?

Fair enough - closeted homosexual with diminutive phallus it is!

lousy filthy Brutals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149195)

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

No takedowns. No removals. (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43148577)

Hmm .. is history about to repeat itself? I seem to remember there used to be a bunch of mp3 hosting sites that aren't here now. I'm guessing that this guy will be headed to oblivion once people start up-loading 3d scans of copywrited material - whether it is from a gun manufacturer or from Disney.

Good luck finding somewhere safe to host the servers.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year ago | (#43148655)

Copies of Kalashnikov's work are made pretty much every place on the globe already.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43149469)

Well, they're out of patent protection, aren't they? So it's not even black-market.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43148703)

The question is whether he meant exactly what he said, or if he failed to think it all the way through. Did he mean that any 3D printing file that anyone uploads to their site, even if the copyright on the file belongs to someone else would remain on their site until a court orders them to take it down? Which is the literal interpretation of the words he said. Or did he mean that as long as the file uploaded to their site is not owned by someone who requests they take it down they will leave it up, no matter how offensive some people might find it? If he means the latter, and has deep enough pockets, he may well be able to keep the doors open and the servers online. He did leave himself an out by saying they would fight to keep things up "to the full extent of the law." That qualifier suggests that his meaning was closer to the latter than to the former.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43148803)

to the full extent of the law.

I took that to mean that he would fight. Not that he would necessarily be innocent or win. For all I know he may be taking an extreme stance on " [stuff] needs to be free"

However also from TFA this new site is meant as a revenue generating source - most likely for himself ("a guys gotta eat") so I am more inclined to believe that he is on more of an egotistical/screw you stance than flowers and cute ponies [wielding AK-47's].

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43149067)

I agree that it reads like he would fight every attempt to take anything down from the site, but it could mean a much more pragmatic approach. It could even mean that they would take an approach that would make them only barely distinguishable from the sites he was criticizing as too PC. My hope that his meaning is a somewhat combative, pragmatic approach: if they know the law is against them hosting the file, they will take it down; if they believe that the law allows them to host the file, they will fight to the bitter end, stuff that is in the grey area they will fight until the courts make it clear (taking one of two attitudes "we think this should be legal, but the law is not clear," and "we think the law is unclear here and the courts need to clarify the meaning of the law, we will abide by the court's decision.")

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43149189)

However also from TFA this new site is meant as a revenue generating source - most likely for himself ("a guys gotta eat") so I am more inclined to believe that he is on more of an egotistical/screw you stance than flowers and cute ponies [wielding AK-47's].

Which gets interesting because DMCA takedowns have already occurred [arstechnica.com] .

Since he's selling affiliate links to people who can make it for you or other things, things would get murky very fast.

Forget guns - they'll quickly become just a tiny part of the site - it's the other stuff that people upload that'll become popular and mainstream. For every person who'll want to download some AK-47 part, there'll be dozens of others who want the plans to make some Bieber bobble head or something.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148965)

Yeah, I interpreted his meaning as the latter: assuming there's no copyright violation, DefCad would not take down CAD designs based on how controversial those designs might be. I could be wrong, of course.

There's considerable precedent for controversial content being legally protected in the US, even if the content describes something that is illegal: several publishers have printed books (which are available on places like Amazon and other bookstores) that describe how to convert commonly-available semi-auto AK-47 clones into their full-auto brethren. Such a conversion is illegal and will land someone in Club Fed for a while, but writing about the conversion is not. Similarly, there are many magazines and publications about the cultivation and use of marijuana even though the possession of marijuana violates federal law.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148771)

I read this as more like "we'll only take down stuff when compelled to by a court". The auto-removal stuff that some hosts will do won't be honored. Kind of like nearlyfreespeech.com - they will not take down stuff just because it's controversial, but they do respect the law.
That's just the way I interpret it, could well be wrong.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43148789)

Except for logos, there's not a lot of gun IP left. A small amount of shifting, and the copyright restraints dissolve. There are more recent patents for semi-automatics, but the technology's been around for generations, so patents have mostly expired.

Death, however, has been around forever although I think Bezos will try to patent something there, one day soon.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43148839)

Except for logos, there's not a lot of gun IP left.

I don't think its the lack of gun IP that will do him in, rather the opportunity by other parties (such as Disney for want of a better example) to take him down, which *co-incidently* takes down the gun stuff.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43148947)

If he hosts copyrighted material and attracts it for dissemination, then yes, he invites criminal and civil litigation.

Hosting doesn't necessarily cause a problem. Invitation to piracy steps over several lines depending on the jurisdiction.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43148959)

So then they will go to bittorrent or whatever the next big thing is. While old fogies will just get the stuff off usenet.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43149175)

What is weird and really, really fucked up is that I would not be scared of the guys with the guns, but of the guy with the cute cartoon mouse.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149989)

It's because you're caught up in the whole Slashdot ethos and have a poor grip of reality.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

Zimluura (2543412) | about a year ago | (#43149323)

"useful articles" don't get any copyright protection.

things like this can get patents, but patents don't last as long. the venerable ar-15 has no unexpired patents. that's why there are so many different ar15 designs out there. ar15 manufacturers (like stag, adams arms, zombie defense, dpms, yhm) aren't licensing the design from eugene stoner, armalite, or colt.

patents related mechanical engineering are also much less consolidated than the copyrights of major record labels and movie studios. so there is less of a coordinated effort (and less money to spend) in pursuit of legal action in the event of patent violation.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43149347)

3D handheld scanners are not cheap. Yet anyways. But yes, I can imagine a torrent of 3Dz scanz (gotta use 1337 speak) hitting the net. And you guys thought the RIAA and MPAA were pissed...

Let me foretell what will happen here. And I'm dead serious! Private ownership of 3D printers will be *illegal*. A law will pass with full bipartisan support in congress. For the companies that need them, the operator will be required to be government certified and keep a roster log of all objects created and the materials used to create them.

Mark. My. Words!

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149553)

There are still tons of mp3 hosting sites, it's just that search engines like Google aren't indexing them. Only Google is allowed to use copyrighted music to make money with YouTube.

Re:No takedowns. No removals. (1)

lart2150 (724284) | about a year ago | (#43149605)

I got it a gun with Micky Mouse(r) ears for iron sights!

While I am all for a Thingiverse alternative...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148617)

Not that this would be my Thingiverse alternative of choice. Any time these people do anything I can't help but feel like they are shills with the express purpose of providing an excuse to legislate 3D printing into the ground.

Takedowns? Removals? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148645)

If you like humping your mommy
And getting caught by your dad
If you're not into poota
If you have half a nad
If you'd like humping butts at midnight
In the smooth anal gape
Then I'm the love that you've looked for
Write to me and assrape.

uh oh (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43148649)

Better just move the hosting to North Korea right now and get it over with, lol.

Re:uh oh (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43148687)

Better just move the hosting to North Korea right now and get it over with, lol.

You think think the Glorious Leader will welcome with open arms someone who believes his mission is to give uncontrollable numbers of weapons to the masses? I

Re:uh oh (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year ago | (#43148985)

Frankly, yes. He won't particularly care. North Korea, including "reservists" has the biggest standing army on the planet, three times bigger than the US military if you measure it in the number of soldiers.

Lack of access to guns isn't what's keeping the North Korean people in check, proof positive that a right to bear arms isn't a utopian solution to a dictatorial government.

Re:uh oh (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#43149193)

If the right people have access to guns, and the wrong ones don't, an aboundance of guns can be very stabilizing to a dictatorship. You just have to guarantee that your people always get more guns and ammunition than the rebels.

dragon dong also would been an acceptable answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148673)

first fleshlight file uploaded in 3... 2... 1...

Punk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148713)

"It's a .44 Defcad, the most powerful handgun made, and it'll blow your head clean off. So - hey, knock it off with the laughter!"

Re:Punk (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43148863)

"It's a .44 Defcad, the most powerful handgun printed, and it'll blow my hand clean off. So - hey, knock it off with the laughter!"

NRA: free speech champs (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43148715)

Two great causes that go great together.

If you're a first amendment activist, you should be opposed to takedown efforts because censorship is bad, whether you're talking about porn, Wikileaks, DeCSS or 3D printer plans for guns.

And Code (really? Code?) should hook up with the NRA and get their lobbying dollars on his side. After all, 3D printers don't kill people, people WITH 3D printers kill people.

(Alternate joke: you can take my extrusion depositor when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!)

Re:NRA: free speech champs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148869)

I dunno if the NRA would want to be on his side when the copyrighted designs of the gun manufacturers that support them are being posted on his website...

Re:NRA: free speech champs (5, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#43149285)

Copyrighted designs aren't really much of a thing in the gun industry. As a matter of fact tons of clones and copies are made of various designs.

The Mauser bolt action is cloned by countless companies.
The AR15 design is cloned by at least a few dozen different companies.
The Colt 1911 design is cloned by Kimber, Rock Island, STI, SVI, Ruger, Remington, S&W, Springfield, Taurus, and about a bazillion more.
The Beretta 92 design is cloned by both Taurus and Turkey
The Walther P99 is cloned by Canik.
The CZ-75 design is cloned by Tanfoglio and Canik.
The Glock is cloned by Timberwolf
The Ruger 10/22 is cloned by Volquartsen

And so forth for many, many models. Gun technology in use today has been nearly perfected for close to 100 years. It truly is more about just making a quality product than the "IP" so many other industries worry about.

Re:NRA: free speech champs (1)

GungaDan (195739) | about a year ago | (#43149565)

One important correction:

The Ruger 10/22 is *improved* by Volquartsen

Re:NRA: free speech champs (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43149303)

I'm pretty sure that gun designs are protected by patent, not copyright. Copyright might cover any drawings or specifications, which are not required in order to reverse-engineer a design.

Re:NRA: free speech champs (1, Flamebait)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43148937)

The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.

Re:NRA: free speech champs (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#43149609)

The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.

Exactly right. Unfortunately, this is /., so you've been immediately modded as "flamebait."

The flame you're baiting me with is the fire of truth.

Re:NRA: free speech champs (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#43148969)

His name is Cody. Submitter misspelled it and the "editor" was too dumb to actually notice and correct it.

Re:NRA: free speech champs (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year ago | (#43149687)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by laziness.

Feeling Luck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148743)

Well are you punk?

Forbes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148749)

Why is Forbes the main media organization covering this? It feels like Forbes has exclusive leads on this 3D weapon printing business, at least when it's Defense Distributed.

Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (3, Insightful)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | about a year ago | (#43148759)

What you are doing is perfectly legal, has been for years. The plans to build all sorts of guns have been out for ages. The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal. Calling it "hosting politically incendiary content" isn't going to make it so. It isn't going to be the Big Bad Government that is going to take you down either, it is the wife of the guy that has one of your designs blow up in his face that is going to soak up every dime you are worth. Go ask Paladin Press how it works, I am sure they will give you an ear full.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (3, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43148881)

Calling it "hosting politically incendiary content" isn't going to make it so.

I'm getting the feeling that we are only talking about this because he is an attention-whore who is slinging around some meaningless words in order to drive traffic to his site.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149315)

I wouldn't say attention-whore since it's a for-profit business. He's a marketer, which may be just as bad.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149863)

Marketer: professional attention-whore.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43148933)

If memory serves, at least the first-gen 3d printed designs were direct adaptations from http://www.cncguns.com/ [cncguns.com] CAD files, and that site has been up with little or no controversy for some years now. I assume that there has been some adaptation since then to support the limitations of 3d printing hardware.

Yeah, yeah, '3d printers' are magic star-trek replicators from the future, and CNC gear is old-and-busted-industrial-economy-getting-your-hands-dirty; but small scale weapons manufacture really isn't news(especially when you can legally buy some of the really tricky parts(properly rifled and chromed barrel, say) and just screw them on to the lower receiver you hacked together.)

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year ago | (#43149051)

Much easier than trying to get him to "take down" designs would be to swamp it with useless or dangerous ones. To be any use it would have to have a review/rating system; but that could also be gamed, as one sees at Amazon or IMDB, for instance.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43149083)

It's not the government that is out to get you, the freedom-loving individual. It's the other freedom-loving individuals, whose freedom and yours have come into conflict. They're the ones who will fight you, and they're the ones who will use the government as a weapon in that fight.

The government is indeed a brutal tool, but it's a double-edged sword, that will decide for itself who will be struck. That decision is based on the opinions of judges throughout history, who have made decisions on the subjective evidence of whose freedom must be suppressed to bring about the most benefit for society.

To sway those judges to your favor, promise and demonstrate a benefit to society and respect for the freedom and happiness of others. To turn those judges against you, promise to incite mayhem and subvert government authority, and give others the tools and encouragement to do so.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year ago | (#43149889)

Don't think judges care about freedom and happiness, they are there to legitimize the government by insuring its regulations are consistent, even they are written by Satan himself.

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149783)

1000% Agree.. Actually the government is the largest publisher of designs for firearms.. its called the patent office...

1 of many examples http://www.scribd.com/doc/14652685/US-Patent-984519-Colt-1911

Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149961)

The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal.

What makes this much more interesting is the fact that I'm from a country where making guns is definitely not legal, and the government actually cares. Furthermore, I would really expect this to be the current norm globally.

Internet really makes the world much smaller. It's going to be interesting to see how things will play out.

Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148765)

I hope they are hosting through an .onion or .i2p address from some godforsaken country, because otherwise 'the man' will raid them repeatedly.

Interesting intersection of Patent and Copyright (4, Interesting)

Erich (151) | about a year ago | (#43148877)

It's usually hard to copyright a "thing". If you make a thing -- a new type of shelving or gun or glass or pen or chair or whatever -- you can't get a copyright on it, you can maybe get a patent on it.

So for a CAD file of a gun, the CAD file could be copyrighted... but it would be copyrighted by the author, not by the manufacturer of the gun it was a clone of (unless they were the author, of course). Now, printing out the gun might be manufacturing something covered by patents... but copying the file wouldn't be creating the gun.

3D printing will sure be interesting from a legal standpoint, it potentially brings copyright and patent law together for just about everything. I would hope that we could establish that CAD files for 3D printers are equal to recipes for the purposes of copyright: a series of steps to create something. But that's certainly not what happened for source code.

Re:Interesting intersection of Patent and Copyrigh (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#43149227)

In this case, it would be probably a design patent they could be infringing on, or a trade dress they violate.

At this point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148897)

It is more likely, he will end up on the same lists as Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz, and Kim Dotcom. He will be accused of being a child molester, or accused of some other hanus crime, and will end up being hunted down in one form or another. If he is smart, he will set asside some money for a rescue operation.

Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Source (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148899)

It will happen. The CNC machine and the 3D printer will morph together. I will be able to program my own gun parts design and share/sell it over the Internet. People will improve on my design and we will have much better guns and other products. Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.

Less drama more substance (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43148925)

How about before you become the google of something you prove that this even exists.

Show me a working 3d printed gun. Not a lower for an AR, not a magazine, but an actually working 3d printed gun. That means you have to 3d print the parts that go bang. Otherwise you are just 3d printing gun accessories.

Re:Less drama more substance (3, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | about a year ago | (#43149121)

He could be the Hank Hill of 3D printing....

"I sell guns and gun accessories."

Re:Less drama more substance (5, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#43149341)

By law the lower for an AR IS the gun. Except for the serialed received every other component of a gun is considered parts.. Its the only part that requires a background check, and under most pending legislation will be the only actual part banned from sale to civilians (largely the same for magazines).

Re:Less drama more substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149567)

By law the lower for an AR IS the gun.

Except right now they cannot even print a full lower receiver. All they can print is the lower receiver frame.

Re:Less drama more substance (2)

L3370 (1421413) | about a year ago | (#43149719)

What they print is referred to as a "stripped" lower, like the frame of a car. fire controls and various parts within it are 5$ items. springs, pins, and various pieces of shaped metal.

Re:Less drama more substance (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43149763)

So what?

A lower without an upper is useless. That means all they have to do is update the law. Making barrels is still a lot harder to do, same with actions. The law is outdated and should regulate the parts that are hardest to produce.

Re:Less drama more substance (3, Informative)

L3370 (1421413) | about a year ago | (#43149681)

The lower receiver is the only part of the gun thats considered a gun by the law, and for good reason. It houses the magazine and the fire controls (safety, select fire--if applicable, trigger) and everything connects to it.

For a car analogy, its the frame and the engine. If you can make receivers, you're in the league with Ford and Toyota. If you make buttstocks and compensators, you're that company that sells import tuner supplies and curb feelers for gigantic low-riders.

Re:Less drama more substance (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year ago | (#43149777)

It also afforded a flat surface to stamp, which apparently was the other reason Colt chose the lower.

Traditionally, it was a part which handled high pressures / forces (so the frame of a revolver, &c.) --- the AR-15 is unusual in the serial-numbered lower receiver not being a part subjected to extreme forces and hence suitable to fabrication w/ inexpensive materials.

Hopefully this won't get us to the point of more parts being serial-numbered as is sometimes seen in other countries.

Pretty sad (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43148929)

The biggest thing people are taking from home 3D printing is building guns. America, Fuck Yeah!

Let's play poker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43148949)

This guys is terrible at bluffs. Before he had the shield of "citizen defense" with the printed guns, but now by repeating something intentionally irritating to the government, err, ALL governments, shows him as someone trying to make his name known, instead of trying to be useful to the species.

Sad. :'( y u do dat?

Immediate Goal (3, Funny)

carrier lost (222597) | about a year ago | (#43149017)

I want to be the Google of naming things "The Google of ..."

Re:Immediate Goal (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43149433)

When the name of your company turns into a verb, you know you're successful.

Let me know when you can print quality steel, pal (1)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year ago | (#43149031)

Real guns are generally made of quality metals and/or very high quality ceramics.

Until your 3D printer can do those, you're just printing a really cheap-ass stock.

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149107)

Real guns are generally made of quality metals and/or very high quality ceramics.

Until your 3D printer can do those, you're just printing a really cheap-ass stock.

Two words: Solvable Problem

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (1)

Rhywden (1940872) | about a year ago | (#43149317)

Two words: Not really.

Unless you can show me the 3D printer which will withstand upwards of 1500 C. And, no, gluing the stuff together is not a good idea.

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149623)

> Unless you can show me the 3D printer which will withstand upwards of 1500 C

You can choose from lots. They're not terribly cheap though.

http://www.arcam.com/technology/electron-beam-melting/

(I've used them. Pieces come out a little "rough" to the touch [+- 0.2mm I think], and have to be finished to look like the samples you'll see on the official website - the material properties are however "better than cast", which is why serious people are using them today for serious purposes. Not well enough defined for printing a gun you can use without further work, but if you're prepared to finish by hand, it would do at a pinch. I'm the same person who commented on Arcam above)

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149447)

Titanium - that any good?

http://www.arcam.com/

(Ti preferred to steel for most additive manufacturing due to anisotropy post-melt - it's not cheap, but can make some pretty things for your desk, as well as components of racing cars. The precision is not close to good enough for making guns though - google EBM vs SLS for more information)

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149525)

So not a fan of poly frames then?

Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p (1)

L3370 (1421413) | about a year ago | (#43149795)

Ceramics--not really. Glock had this but quickly learned they were junk. High grade polymers--basicaly good quality plastic-- are now very common in firearms and have proven durability that rivals steel, with the added benefit of not rusting or adding lots of weight
I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think you catch my drift.

Jonny get your gun! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149143)

So mom and dad are happy Jonny is working on the computer in the basement and not getting into trouble. A few days later up comes Jonnny with his 3d printed AR-15! And parents think it is hard raising kids now.

Moist Nuggets (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year ago | (#43149145)

Can I 3D print a Mosin Nagant for cheaper than buying one yet?

Re:Moist Nuggets (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149793)

Depends on what state/country you live in...

3D print a DVD? (1)

iced_tea (588173) | about a year ago | (#43149459)

I wonder if you can "3D print a DVD". You submit the AutoCad drawing of a circular disk, even down to the small etchings in the resin (that may or may not contain copyrighted content).

That wouldn't constitute piracy would it? It's just digital representation of a a physical object. =)

Re:3D print a DVD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149571)

If you could get a 3d printer that good they yes in theory you could. Most do not work on the micron level though...

Pay the gun nuts no attention. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43149901)

How can something like SXSW let a dangerous gun nut speak? Why are we letting this small group of very insane people get so much speaking time on our media?

The whole point of printable guns is to bypass laws and safeguards meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Correspondingly, there is a huge intersection between the mentally ill and gun nuts because crazy people hoard weapons and are obsessed with defense and doomsday scenarios.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...