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!

Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the but-how-can-we-infringe-the-people's-right-now? dept.

United States 712

Daniel_Stuckey writes with this snippet from Motherboard with an update on Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project: "On Friday morning, Forbes's Andy Greenberg published photos of the world's first completely 3D-printed gun. It has a 3D-printed handle, a 3D-printed trigger, a 3D-printed body and a 3D-printed barrel, all made of polymer. It's not completely plastic, though. So as not to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act and guarantee it would get spotted by a metal detector, Wilson and friends embedded a six-ounce hunk of steel inside the gun. They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

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

The answer to the question (4, Insightful)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625771)

The NRA thinks more guns are the answer. Looks like we'll find out if that's true when when we can put a gun in the hands of everyone, rich or poor.

Re:The answer to the question (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625793)

You still need ammo, though.

Re:The answer to the question (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625839)

Giving people ammo would be too socialist.

We'll make people earn their bullets through their own individual efforts.

Re:The answer to the question (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625893)

The NRA are very social guys, they give you bullets for free. Ok, just the front end, but hey...

Re:The answer to the question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626325)

No, they give you the whole bullet. Dumbass.

Re:The answer to the question (3, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626071)

As opposed to the civilian disarmament crowd that only wants weapons in the hands of the rich and connected.

Re:The answer to the question (0, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626169)

Strawman. Civilian disarmament crowd (me included) wants guns only in the hands of the police (and not even ALL of the police). Besides, rich people do not really need to bother with guns themselves - why would they, if they can just hire bodyguards?

Re:The answer to the question (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626237)

The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals. The latter is unavoidable no matter how convenient it may be to pretend it is not.

Re:The answer to the question (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626285)

Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Re:The answer to the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626251)

Civilian disarmament crowd is the silly people that think that criminals will give up their guns.

If you think a criminal is not going to have access to a gun if you make them illegal, well you are simply really stupid.

Criminals get what they want no matter what the law says... Crack and Meth is all over the place and laws against it have done nothing to stop it.

Re:The answer to the question (2)

daninaustin (985354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626257)

That boat already sailed years ago. There are around 300 million guns in the US and they are easy to make. They don't really ever wear out so for better or worse we are going to have to live with them.

Re:The answer to the question (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626343)

Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.

Re: The answer to the question (4, Interesting)

Izuzan (2620111) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626085)

Problem with that gun they printed. Judging by the round sitting next to it. It fires 22 shorts or cb caps. Not much better than a pellet rifle coming out of a rifle. Be about as good as a pea shooter coming out of a pistol with a inch long barrel.

Re:The answer to the question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626117)

Your post is idiotic and you're so fucking ignorant it's sad.

There exist a number of firearms manufacturers that cater to the low-end arena. You can buy NEW firearms in the $100 range.

Compare that to how fucking many thousands for a 3d printer? Fuck, you'll probably spend more on materials printing the fucking thing than you could spend at your local sporting goods store.

But hey, go ahead and continue your anti-gun jackoff session. Don't let facts happen or anything.

White people problems (1)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625775)

They love their freedoms.

Freedom is only one principle used to achieve results.

But life is about results, not principles.

Re:White people problems (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626239)

They love their freedoms.

Freedom is only one principle used to achieve results.

But life is about results, not principles.

Without principles, life would be dull and predictable, ho hum. The TAO says to take the middle path, if you walk down the center-line you can get hit by traffic in both directions. Pick a side, any side, at least you can see some of what's coming.

It's a 3D printed gun shape (1, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625799)

It's a plastic toy that's shaped like a gun, but I don't believe it can be fired. The trigger looks already broken on the picture, imagine how reliable the other parts of the gun are.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625935)

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (5, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626009)

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626125)

.. that will still just print out a plastic piece of shit.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626133)

A $1300 3d printer. Or you could buy three AK-47's.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (2)

daninaustin (985354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626339)

Not anymore and probably never again.. Have you seen the prices of AK's recently? Like most guns & ammo the price on AK's has gone way up. Parts kits are getting scarce and expensive and barrels can no longer be imported. The days of $99 Romanian parts kits and $299 AK's is over. I think that is one of the points of the 3d printing. Right now we depend on supply chains for parts that can dry up at any time but with 3d printing (at least if it continues to improve) we may be able to print out most parts we need. Designs will also evolve to utilize the new materials.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626147)

You don't *need* CNC. Just some basic hand tools and a lot of elbow grease. How do you think they did it in the old days?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626181)

Small but usable manual mills cost far less than a Staples 3D printer. Tho they take up a bit more of your garage...

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626213)

Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?

Any gun you could print out of a 3D printer that cost less that a good CNC mill would be completely useless as it would simply crack under the stress of the first bullet you put in it (assuming it could even exert enough force on the bullet to fire it). If you tried a high enough caliber you might even injure yourself with the shrapnel.

You would be far better off printing yourself a knife and sharpening it - you would be able to do a lot more damage with that.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626223)

you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples

One that prints 5"x5"x5" max.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626243)

you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples

One that prints 5"x5"x5" max.

Which is more than big enough to make a pistol (7" on the diagonal).

Now, whether that pistol would be safe to shoot, that's another question entirely.

Note, by the by, that you couldn't pay me enough to pull the trigger on one of them, unless it were literally a matter of life or death...for someone I liked...a lot.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626299)

You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626059)

A surprising number of 3d printing projects seem to have been born of the fact that the gutting of domestic blue-collar production means that we currently have a massive glut of geeks who want to make things; but who never had wood shop(and certainly not metal shop, heaven forfend!) in school, and whose fathers pushed paper for a living and weren't in a position to teach them anything about manufacturing...

There are, undoubtedly, applications for which 3d printed materials cannot be matched by any conventional technique(some of the 'sure, let's just print a highly detailed collagen matrix to build a replacement organ' stuff, or some of the single-piece geometry you can get, along with anything that rewards rapid turnaround on very small runs); but there are a lot of 3d printed objects that are essentially really bad plastic versions of something that could have been knocked together with the machine tools of 50 years ago, never mind fancy CNC gear.

(And lest anybody think that I'm criticizing from the outside, I'm actually in a pretty similar boat. My grandfather was a mechanical engineer, did it at work, had a pretty serious setup in his basement. We didn't live at all close to that side of the family, so I only really saw it when doing logistics after the funeral. Dad was mostly a white-collar numbers guy, with a little bit of hobby carpentry that tapered off after he had kids. My own education was strictly college prep, and my only machine-tool time was through a university, plus the online services.)

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626185)

An astute analysis and very well-put. Thank you.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626269)

Buddy of mine built an AK47, automatic version out of a frigging shovel and some other metal parts in his poorly tooled metal shop. If you have the plans, you can make things better and faster with less than $100 in metal and some crap tools.

And yes he drilled a barrel and even put in some crappy rifling. A weekend project.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626025)

Oh no no, 3D printing is the future! It will make all other manufacturing processes obsolete!

Looks like more of a grenade to me. (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626065)

The only question is how many shots before it explodes.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (1)

daninaustin (985354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626271)

It's an early prototype. Take a look at the other things they have made like the ar15 receiver and magazine. it took a few tries but they finally got them working. They'll do the same for this.

Liberator? (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625801)

They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.

Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.

I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.

Re:Liberator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626053)

It'll do its job. A $3 gun that makes it prohibitively expensive to hold and keep boots on the ground. Everybody will need extra backup,

It isn't for gunfighting, it isn't for holding back home invaders.

It's a gun to make a revolutionary into a soldier/assassin and really only supposed to be used once or twice.

You aren't supposed to trust it -- but it is supposed to be better than your bare hands. I'd say this looks like it'd perform the job admirably.

Re:Liberator? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626179)

Dude, if you know ANYTHING about revolutions then you would know that guns are NEVER a problem (for both sides).

Re:Liberator? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626295)

What's the problem then? Ammo? (Think Bunker's hill)

Re:Liberator? (-1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626333)

The main problem is to get sufficient population support and then enough strength to resist the official armed forces. IMO, the gun-nut-cum-libertarian crowd in the US is a cancer - they are rabidly anti-government and completely reality-proof. If US ever becomes a tyranny then they'll gladly become prison guards in concentration camps just to shoot people from AUTOMATIC GUNZ!

Re:Liberator? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626287)

Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation.

I'm guessing that matches.

Profit (0)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625813)

1. 3d-print tomb stones
2. ...
3. profit

I'll even print a bio degradable riffle for your cold dead hands if you want
4. more profit.

Re:Profit (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625993)

Not a bad idea, since tomb stone retailers price gouge so much

You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625821)

You might smuggle the gun through a metal detector, but has nobody stopped to think that BULLETS ARE MADE OF METAL?!?!?

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625833)

I don't think this gun is designed to be smuggled through metal detectors. It's designed to be made at home, hence the reason it's made primarily of plastic.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625889)

Right, the 'smuggling' angle is just to instill fear into citizens to supporting more laws against firearms in this country. Our founderd never stipulated that a 'arm' had to be 'detectable' and in fact, would fully support such a concept if it was possible.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626281)

If you need to make your own gun at home this is cheaper and deadlier. You just need the shotgun shell and 2 pipes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

And you can do it without brains (jump 1 minute in the video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1qkJV_5So0

I really don't care what kind of gun people made for them self and what use they do with it. I'm more worried about brain-dead drivers.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625923)

Bullets can be made out of clay or glass. They won't be great ones, and I wouldn't use one for a lot of purposes, but it'd work for a close end pistol.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (3, Informative)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626027)

No... they really can't.

Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

grantek (979387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626145)

If you've got access to propellant it'd often be better to build a Kirk-style blunderbuss out of strong pre-formed tube. It's hard to imagine a situation where you have access to a 3D printer and appropriate plastic, AND happen to have a couple of small-calibre low pressure bullets, but I'm sure there are edge cases where this will do nicely.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626171)

It's a gun made of plastic... do you really think it has rifling?

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626183)

In a low-pressure, low-velocity firearm with a smooth bore barrel and a clearance fit of bullet to bore, a clay or glass projectile would work just fine.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626245)

Lead is cheap and dense, which is very nice indeed(I can't think of anything offhand that comes terribly close on the cost/density graph, certainly not any nonmetals); but at least a few centuries of firearms survived without the luxury of rifling that actually worked.

Smoothbore muskets used cloth or paper wadding to, er, paper over the dubious fit between a round projectile and the barrel, some modern bullets with jackets hard enough to be a risk to the barrel use polymers.

It wasn't until Minie balls that 'engaging the rifling' became a feature that you tuned your lead alloy for.

Given that the muzzle velocity on something like this is probably pretty dreadful, the density issue would be a real problem; but a smoothbore design with polymer wadding would be doable enough, suckitude aside.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626319)

dude you can fire stones from a flintlock if you put enough wadding around it. Blunderbus street sweepers shot bolts, nails and glass.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626143)

besides what the other poster said about internal ballistics, someone with the low density of either material you mention would not penetrate. there is a reason bullets are made of dense material such as lead, bronze or steel

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626199)

And there is a reason people are killed by close proximity shots from blank ammunition. The plastic or cardboard wad. Any projectile moving fast enough can cause damage, sometimes lethal amounts.

Re:You might smuggle the gun.. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626329)

no, that is due to the jet of hot gas at the extremely high pressure. it can part flesh or ram fragments of skull into head. stories of wadding and cardboard push into body are merely those of debris left by the gas jet.

CAD files (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625855)

Soooo where are they?

And i don't see a problem with calling it a liberator. Neither would hold up past a couple of shots, but that's enough, especially when you can make more with ease...

Uh huh, yah.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625865)

Prove it...Let's see it being fired. :)

I can 3D print a tank given enough time and filament, but that doesn't mean it will actually run.

Is there a children's version? (5, Funny)

Alejux (2800513) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625873)

My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!

Re:Is there a children's version? (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626007)

There's always the Hello Kitty AK-47 [tumblr.com] .

Re:Is there a children's version? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626087)

That's an AR, you ignorant prick.

Re:Is there a children's version? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626137)

This is a perfect example of what goes wrong in many gun discussions and debates. Misinformation. Misinformation. Misinformation.

It's a Hello Kitty AR15.

"My First Rifle" (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626129)

My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!

I don't what to think when a post like this gets modded up funny.

A young boy in Kentucky has accidentally shot his two-year-old sister in the chest, killing her. He was playing with a rifle he got for his birthday. The shooting happened in Burkesville, Kentucky as the boy was playing with the 22-calibre 'youth model' gun when it was not realised that the gun was loaded. The children's uncle, David Mann, described the accident as 'something you can't prepare for'

Five-year-old shoots and kills toddler sister with birthday present rifle --- video [guardian.co.uk] [May 3]

Here's How the Rifle That Just Killed a 2-Year-Old Girl Is Marketed for Kids [motherjones.com]

The Crickett website is down.

Re:"My First Rifle" (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626233)

No, they are marketing their rifles to parents by showing how cute their kids can be with a Crickett. I know the marketing to kids angle worked for the prohibition of vices crowd when it came to tobacco and alcohol. But stop. Just stop.

Re:"My First Rifle" (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626311)

Even the gun-nuttiest people I know subscribe to the 'Don't point a loaded gun at something you wouldn't be happy shooting. If you haven't verified that a gun is unloaded, it is loaded.' theory... One or both of those parents must have fucked up pretty seriously.

Re:"My First Rifle" (0)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626321)

We the people must like this state of affairs or something would be done about it. So there's no sense in becoming hysterically angry that someone would make light of the circumstance. If you're an American, why haven't you fixed the problem yet, if you feel that strongly about it? If you're not, why aren't you busy feeling smugly superior that your own culture is better? And, for what it's worth, the only rational explanation I can come up with for our behavior in the USA is that it's all a secret eugenics project to breed children who will always somehow not be where the bullets are. Sure, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs, but once we have our first generation of kids who can dodge bullets, our military will be able to stalk through the battlefield like some action movie star. Then who'll be laughing? In fact.. someone's coming... THEY KNOW! Oh, false alarm. It was just my pizza.

In Other News... (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625875)

Staples has reversed its recent decision to sell 3-D printers. To remain above reproach, the company will also be cancelling orders for some product lines [staples.com] .

If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625879)

It's hard to fault them for coming to that generalization when we do stupid stuff just for the sake of it.

I have "hacker" friends who screw around with their guns to "learn" more. Once of them has a half dozen little quarter inch scars in his face from where the blew the brass out the back of a gun in little pieces. It was an easy mistake to make. The barrel couldn't take the stresses, deformed a bit; squibbed; he didn't notice; the one he put on top of it corked it and blew back of his experimental gun out. Unlike a Glock when you try to shoot through a squib, his gun moved the bolt off to the side allowing the brass to spray into his face.

If you want to start the Ligth Gunsmithing Hobby don't start by printing parts. There are so many variables in the alignment of printed plastic molecules, that getting consistent mechanical stress resistance is just wishful thinking and luck.

If you want to hack at these things. Go get a safe "known good" gun and learn to modify it. There's plenty of classes, videos and youtube tutorials. You'll soon learn there are things like button rifling that are worth doing right, but probably never worth your time. Let Colt do that for you.

This is like starting in software by rewriting sections of the Linux Kernel to make them faster... that is, it would be if a Kernel Panic could kill you.

Re:If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teen (4, Funny)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626291)

Don't be so negative. Imagine a bright future where you can 3d-print your own Darwin Award, wouldn't that be nice?

Morons. You're not helping. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625895)

You think you are helping 'gun rights'. But no.. You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.

This isn't even that special. You can make a damm gun from some scrap steel laying around the average garage.

Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (2, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625927)

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...

Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626063)

It's speeding up the regulation comming to be. If it wasn't for the whole 'ooo scary 3d gun' thing drawing attention to them NOW...

It would be a long long time until companies noticed people are printing their own plastic crap.

It comes down to the difference between a year or 5 before these get regulated... And a decade or two.

"You're not helping" is correct.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (2)

John Jorsett (171560) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626177)

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...

Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.

It will happen no matter what, but they need an excuse and this is a great one. If you notice how our privacy has been eroded, it generally comes in jumps after big some traumatic event hits the news. Kind of the same way a boa constrictor suffocates you, by tightening each time you exhale. Getting people in a lather about printed firearms being smuggled aboard aircraft or into secure areas would be the opportunity to tighten.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625977)

You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

No, clueless fools who vote for the entrenched political parties will be the ones hurting the "world" of 3D printing.

And they're not likely to act until printers advance a bit more and someone figures out he can print out $HOLLYWOODBLOCKBUSTER action figures for his kid.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626011)

Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it? And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (2)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626039)

Calm down. Long ago, when "zip guns" were being made out of a stolen car antenna, a rubber band, a clothespin, and a rimfire .22 bullet, and teen gangs started threatening each other with them, nobody banned antennas or clothespins.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (2)

tsotha (720379) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626283)

This. Guns are incredibly easy to make, and the plastic gun that comes out of a printer is only going to be good for a few rounds before it breaks. Anybody who actually wants to make a gun would do well just to skip the 3D printer and hop on the internet.

The project is interesting in that someday it might be possible to produce something better. I'm skeptical, though, given the materials involved.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626057)

Politicians won't be able to ban printers entirely. They would be lynched.

Their only real option is to try and impose some kind of blacklisted geometry detector, which won't work and will get the whole regulatory system torn out and stomped on shortly thereafter.

You show me a computer algorithm that can not only recognize arbitrary 3D geometry but discern purpose and intent of an object without any other context, and I'll show you a Nobel Prize.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626153)

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave..."

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626347)

Actually lots of CAE simulation software can quite easily surmise purpose from 3D geometry.

Are they really Morons? (4, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626095)

... You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.

...Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.

Should we blame these people for inciting others to action?

I don't think that's right. We should put the blame where it rightly belongs, which is with whatever regulation agency decides to ban things.

Also, should we worry about repercussions before there actually *are* repercussions? Aren't we guessing an extreme consequence here? I mean, do we want to be the "game over, man [youtube.com] " guy from that Aliens movie?

And finally, should we be calling people morons and dictating their actions in a dismissive tone on the subject of gun control? There are reasoned arguments on both sides - the percentage spread between pro and con arguments is not totally convincing one way or another - certainly not at the p<0.05 confidence level we typically use. We may disagree with their position, but can we say without reservation that their position has no merit?

Personally, I'm against dictating the actions of others in the first place. I like to hold people responsible for their actions, and these people have done nothing that harms others. The sophistry "they're enabling others to kill" is just that - an emotional narrative with no basis used to sway an argument. If (and that's a big if) others are enabled by these acts, then the others would be responsible, not these people.

Re:Morons. You're not helping. (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626097)

You have some battered wife syndrome going on there.

Not very relevant (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625913)

It's actually quite easy to legally get a gun in many countries. Typically you can get a hunting license or join a shooting club. And yet, the vast majority of people don't bother. In fact, a substantial fraction of those that do get a gun choose to keep them at the club or at some other separate storage, just so they don't have to keep a dangerous weapon at home.

So, there may be people that think this will revolutionize things, in reality it's rather a non-event. People without guns mostly can get them already, but don't want to. Those that want them, already have them.

"If undetectable firearms are outlawed... (1)

ewg (158266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625933)

...only outlaws will have undetectable firearms."

I don't doubt that it's a lethal device (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625937)

But I'd be very interested to whom. It seems to be the person firing the gun.

Re:I don't doubt that it's a lethal device (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626111)

indeed normal self defense rounds producing 30,000 c.u.p. (copper unit of pressure, roughly can say psi). even "weak" rounds like 25 ACP and 32 ACP go 12,000 (early old ones) to 25,000 (modern) and up. I have a very hard time seeing how this thing wouldn't fail.

weird (0)

tantrum (261762) | about a year and a half ago | (#43625963)

To me (a person outside the us) this guy just seems crazy.

If I met this guy I wouldn't trust him for a second. He might be a decent guy, but it really really does not seem like it to me.

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

Re:weird (0)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626017)

We feel the same way about your relationship to monarchy.

Re:weird (3, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626031)

What, that it's a billion dollar operation that's mostly about entertainment and gossip?

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626079)

you just change yours every 5 to 6 years inefficient or worship some other member of your ruling astrocracy whose currently screwing you over.

Least ours is of German manufacture and had years of experience of screwing over the peasants.

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626141)

Japan's relationship with tentacles seems CRAZY to me. What's your fucking point?

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626173)

Their relationship with tentacles is crazy, but I don't see them screwing themselves over under the paranoid suspicion that someone might try to take away their tentacles.

Re:weird (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626165)

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

Notice how we didn't ask you about it.

Unlike Europe and Asia, this country was not founded by a conquering king. It was founded on the abuse of authority; we won our freedom because the civilians had guns and formed militias. For a while after that, we kept our freedom because the politicians were afraid that if they abused their authority that the citizenry would not be afraid to use them again. Quotes by people like James Madison sum it up better than I can: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Of course, members of our government don't feel quite as threatened today, or if they do they don't mention it.

We also don't have to look back too far in history to see what tyrannical governments have done to unarmed civilians. Germany and Russia in the last century, of course; but Cuba and North Korea still run roughshod over their civilians. We say to ourselves, "we'd never let that happen here", and we mean it.

When some group says "we have guns because we have the right to hunt, or we need to defend ourselves from crime", they're being disingenuous. We have guns because we want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious. The 3AM knock on the door to haul away a political dissident will not be allowed to become commonplace here, because we don't even track the law abiding citizens that have guns.

Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep. If it my child were killed in a school shooting, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

Re:weird (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626263)

So why haven't you done anything about your tyrannical government since 2001?

muricans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43625991)

Make cheap weapons at home, headlines news... only in USA...

Something obvous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43626033)

"Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser," said the congressman

Um, the bullets would set it off.

Oh, I see, a "Congressman" said this. Expect more stupid laws made by ignoramuses.

Looks like a gun but how does it work? (1)

sudnshok (136477) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626099)

I'd need to see videos of this working before it means anything to me. No mention in the article how you get a firing pin and springs made out of polymer to work.

mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626151)

mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form in the line of fire

A good thing for reducing gun violence? (0)

Darwiniac (634349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626189)

I'm curious as to whether anyone who really studies gun violence from either the pro or anti-gun side has looked at the possibility that making guns free might eliminate the major driving force behind America's gun obsession- the market.

I personally know several people who have personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars. I don't own any because I know that statistically I'm very unlikely to need one and would rather spend my money on other things. I'm sure they are convinced I am at risk, which technically I am, but I know that it is a far lower risk than having a heart attack and I don't see any of them with a portable defib.

Whenever people make irrational choices en mass I suspect marketing. So what happens when 3d printing is able to make all the signature weapons that are the pride of the various gun manufacturers? No more gun profits means no more gun marketing.

Of course, a good counter-argument might be that the internet has made things like media freely available and the markets have only grown. IDK, do people still pay for porn?

I call for Ammo control.. (1)

Codeyman (1098807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43626275)

Since gun control is not happening and misguided individuals are hell bent of printing out a gun anyway.. control the ammo. Let's see how they print out 3D bullets.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?