×

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!

The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired

timothy posted about a year ago | from the I-certainly-want-one dept.

Technology 717

On Friday, we mentioned that Defense Distributed had created a (near-enough-to) fully 3-D printed pistol. Sparrowvsrevolution now writes that "Last week, the Liberator was fired for the first time at a firing range and successfully shot a .380 caliber bullet using a remote firing setup. Over the weekend, Defense Distributed's founder, the anarchist and radical libertarian Cody Wilson, was bold enough to try firing it by hand. The results of that test, witnessed by a reporter, indicate that the era of the 3D-printed firearm may be upon us, for better or for worse." Predictably, certain politicians are — so to speak — up in arms about it.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

717 comments

That's nice (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43639903)

Predictably, certain politicians are â" so to speak â" up in arms about it.

Considering how often these gun bills have come up, and then gone flaccid, it's going to take some industrial-strength Viagra to get gun control advocates to mount a campaign to put to bed any criticism and pass the climax of votes necessary for it to become a law.

Re:That's nice (-1, Flamebait)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year ago | (#43639917)

Not really. All they need is to fix voting districts which Republicans created to win House despite popular vote going to Democrats and then it's over for gun lovers. Or not game over, because 99% of them current breed of laws won't impact any way at all. Just their pride will be hurt - and arm manufacturers profit.

Ultimately we do need more government intervention (1, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#43640227)

A bigger, more controlling government is going to lead to a safer society.

We definitely do not want the public to have more freedom, since it is obvious that the public is not to be trusted with it. With great power comes great responsibility, and at this point the public fucked up with it, so the public's power must be reduced.

Thankfully, the demographic trends point to this happening! =^) It is only a matter of time before the populism of a bigger socialist government is going to take over the special-interests of civil liberties.

Besides, civil libertarians have never advanced the human conditions or the arts, or has ever done anything to make someone else happy, since they are fundamentally against the idea of socialization. Why should they benefit someone else, when the fruits of their labor belong to them, correct?

Re:Ultimately we do need more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640351)

I agree. You have just lost the freedom to vote, as you agree only harm will come from such a freedom.

Re:That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640239)

It'll be over for politicians before it's over for gun owners. Geez, don't you pay attention? No one is going to give up guns here. They'll just pass more laws and lose more power. No one is going to obey a law the CANNOT respect. The flip side is; if they try to enforce it. I could then see a revolt.
I mean if you want, you could push the point of enforcement, then they'll just say "Guns don't kill people, liberals do." That's really what you want to see isn't it? Angry mobs shooting back and forth with cops. Then go figure, while cops are busy, hoodlums will run wild. It'll be the liberals fault. Filthy violent liberals.

Re: That's nice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639961)

Nah its about the bribery. The gun industry needs their profits so they lobby for no gun control. 3d printing guns would reduce profits so it must be banned.

Re:That's nice (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639975)

This isn't about guns, this is about speech (the ability to communicate this design or download the design from the internet). So Congress shouldn't have any problem passing a law. All that they would need is someone to explain that you could design a pressure cooker with it.

Re:That's nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640277)

So this Democrat Congressman leaves work for home, with determined purpose. He gets out of the limo, not even bothering to acknowledge the driver and heads straight for the house. A bit of sweat on his brow, he's deep in thought and determined to make a difference. Entering through the side door to the kitchen, he sees his
illegal alien cook who works for board and $4.00 hr. and says "Juanita, what the hell is a pressure cooker?" "Why, meester Smeeth, tha eez where your peeeniz goes betweeen my legs, you rascal." " I'm sorry juanita, but if they ever find you they'll have to license your pressure cooker and tatoo it with a serial number. So you need to stay out of sight and away from the front windows from now on."

OT: Slashdot encoding problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639979)

Does everyone see these malformed characters or is it a problem in my Web browser?

are â" so to speak â" up

Re:OT: Slashdot encoding problem (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640063)

Yes. Somebody obviously copied and pasted, and in their rush to get that "oooh ooh, I got first post, now maybe the boys will admire me!!!" rush, they did not preview.

Re:That's nice (1, Offtopic)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43640129)

Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.

The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens [cato.org]
Stories That Happened In MI [gunssavelives.net]

What about the murder rate?

Murder by Numbers [americanthinker.com]

Gun control's general effect on crime?

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control [wsj.com]
Crime soared with Mass. gun law [bostonglobe.com]
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study [telegraph.co.uk]

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right [cato.org]

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.

USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50% [washingtonexaminer.com]
During a manhunt, 69 percent of voters want a gun [foxnews.com]
NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S [gallup.com]
Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states [thehill.com]

Re:That's nice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640143)

Offtopic. This article is about a 3-D printed gun. Try to keep on topic instead of starting a flamewar. I guarantee you that your post isn't going to win that debate, so why not discuss the specifics of the 3-D gun instead of a general gun control debate? Is that too much to ask for?

Re: That's nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640173)

Have you had your head in the sand for the past several months? Besides, every other post prior to this spoke of legislation...why single out the guy with substantial evidence against it...

Re: That's nice (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640207)

Because he is the only one who is not talking about 3-D guns. There is the gun control debate and then there is this new development. We should be talking about this new development. It is new. It changes things. Things are different. They are changed. It is wondrous or awful. New thoughts need to be thunk. Maybe old thoughts are still valid. Maybe not. That is why should talk about it and not the same thing we have been talking about over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again for the previous 6 months. Get it?

Re:That's nice (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43640243)

Try reading the comment to which I was responding. Is that too much to ask for? I notice you didn't complain about that. Nor did you apparently complain about this comment above:

Not really. All they need is to fix voting districts which Republicans created to win House despite popular vote going to Democrats and then it's over for gun lovers. Or not game over, because 99% of them current breed of laws won't impact any way at all. Just their pride will be hurt - and arm manufacturers profit.

Nor did you reply to the gun control comment below this one. It isn't going "off topic," despite the fact that I was responding to an established topic thread, that appears to bother you. Advocating gun control is fine. Sniping at gun owners, the NRA, and Republicans is fine. It is interjecting facts into the discussion that you apparently find disagreeable. Is it because the facts are against your position? Can't we all just agree to be wrong together?

As to winning debates - facts seem to be far too rarely considered in moderation or "winning" debates on Slashdot. After all, the mob is Slashdot.* Popular prejudices often rule even if they are wrong. I expect you will ultimately be pleased with the moderation of my comment, I've come to expect it. Nonetheless, the facts should be presented for people to consider even if it displeases you. People can decide for themselves.

Gracchus [imdb.com]: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.

Re:That's nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640259)

What a load of rubbish about the UK. The fact that you have included such rubbish throws doubt onto the rest of your argument.

As someone British, let me point out to you that:
1)Gun ownership is not a Human Right
2)Gun crime is down consistently in the UK (most importantly including deaths and violent crime); also note that gun crime in the UK includes reports about guns even when they are toys.

In fact, the UK is now the least violent it has EVER been (Google the official stats from the Home Office) and a good part of that is keeping guns out of the hands of nutters like yourself.

Re:That's nice (0, Offtopic)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43640329)

And the predicted outcome arrived before I even finished posting reply to the AC.

My post - score 0 - off-topic.
Parent post [slashdot.org] establishing gun control topic and advocating for it is untouched at 2.
Post in same thread [slashdot.org] advocating gun control, voter redistricting, and implicitly slamming Republicans and gun manufacturers is +3.
Post in same thread [slashdot.org] by AC slamming gun industry is at +1.

This isn't about being "off-topic", it is simple viewpoint discrimination. Any topic is fine, you just can't hold unpopular views supported by facts contrary to popular prejudices. Rather progressive I would say. So, when will the next story on "anti-science Texas" be posted?

Re:That's nice (1, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43640141)

The three real points to gun control are

It is a state right not a federal one. Just like drivers licenses , you can't really regulate it at the federal level. Therefore federal laws are mostly worthless.

and Like pirates with DRM most gun laws only hurt and hinder those who lawfully own the guns. Like the shooting in Newton. The guns were legally locked up and stored. The insane son killed his own mother and then stole her guns. Now gun law would have stopped that.

Lastly they want to ban guns that look like military weapons but don't actually shoot like military weapons. If you made a paintball marker look like an M-16 it would run against the gun laws that just failed. Being that it would have been full auto it could still be illegal under some of the laws in existence.

Re:That's nice (-1, Flamebait)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about a year ago | (#43640307)

The guns were legally locked up and stored. The insane son killed his own mother and then stole her guns. Now gun law would have stopped that.

if guns were banned, there would have been no guns to steal and kill his mother with. so gun laws would have stopped it.

Re:That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640341)

> Now gun law would have stopped that.

Hm, a gun law that would have caused less people to have guns would reduce the likelyhood of this being possible.
A law that would have required the guns to be locked away with key and PIN only known to owner would have stopped it if followed.
While questionable from a human rights perspective, forbidding gun ownership for people living with mentally ill people might have stopped it.
Don't take this as me taking sides in the debate, I just want to point out that the "laws don't make a difference" argument is nonsense at least that broadly stated, if you at least refine your argument the discussion will be a lot more useful IMHO. I absolutely hate how despite there being quite a few good arguments the debate is full of people coming up with lies and nonsense.

Not really (2)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year ago | (#43639929)

While 3D printing looks cool and interesting in general, this is really far fetched. You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

And no, you can't really use this are argument against gun control laws.

Re:Not really (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year ago | (#43639963)

You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

This is why 3D printed guns are a game changer: the average Joe Blow can get himself a gun without needing any sort of gunsmithing skills.

Re:Not really (2)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year ago | (#43640003)

If you have really read articles about it, no, you really can't. 3D printing is tool here, not magic wand which will make reliable and fully functional weapon.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640043)

3D printing is a magic wand, it will change *everything*, computers got better, right? So obviously everything else can get better too.

Re:Not really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640119)

Except Slashdot comments

Re:Not really (1, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#43640297)

The funny part is, the troll are going to run wild today over the site, because all the mod points are going to be used on this particular article to bounce posts up or down, till they are entirely depleted.
Good luck with that, let me know how it all turns out for you.

Re:Not really (4, Informative)

mrchew1982 (2569335) | about a year ago | (#43640031)

um, you could already make a pretty scary shotgun out of a piece of iron pipe, a cap and a nail. google "zip guns" sometime.

really it's a non issue, most of these homemade guns are pretty useless, including this 3d printed one. With a lifetime measured in tens of rounds, it really isn't all that special.

and as always, you still get the same time in the federal pokey if you get caught doing something naughty with it.

Re:Not really (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640075)

> um, you could already make a pretty scary shotgun out of a piece of iron pipe, a cap and a nail.

Dear Retard,

Can you get that thing through airport security? Because THAT is the point here, you simpleton.

Regards,

- Someone who used to think the place was going downhill when the ID's became six digits, but now looks on those times as the glory days.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640153)

The point you want to make is fair. The wordings you choose to address your fellow /. reader seem apply to yourself only, though.

Re: Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640183)

last time i checked, bullets were still made of metal

Re: Not really (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43640279)

And, as has been done in the movies, could easily be hidden in a keychain. If not in a rabbit's foot, then inside one of the larger remote-included keys.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640193)

Dear Retard,

Can you get bullets through airport security? Because THAT is the point here, you simpleton.

Regards,

- Someone who is just passing by but can't help but be stunned by your own idiocy.

Re:Not really (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43640289)

Yeah, hide them in a belt buckle or behind your cufflinks. A metal signal with the wand gets a visual check that verifies there is metal that looks expected. I can think of 100 ways to get bullets past the worthless security we have today. Only a change to zero-metal policy would defeat them, and that would result in severe problems for the travel industry.

Re:Not really (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43640157)

It's perhaps a commentary on the state of craftworking skills in the U.S. that making a rudimentary, one-shot gun is now considered too high-skilled for a regular person to do. The level of skill and equipment needed is basically at the level of a 1950s high-school metalworking class.

Re:Not really (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#43640333)

Oh, I don't think it'll just be in the U.S. The internet kinda does away with borders or at least has less stopping power than our borders ( which is one of the jobs our government IS responsible to protect, above even the phony power they've given themselves) I'm sure you will find easy ways to download the file to print one EVERYWHERE.
I bet China couldn't keep it out.

Re:Not really (2)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43640251)

You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

This is why 3D printed guns are a game changer: the average Joe Blow can get himself a gun without needing any sort of gunsmithing skills.

Another game changer: you can melt them when the crime is done. No hassles with getting rid of the gun, just melt it. Traces on bullets won't have any value then.

Re:Not really (3, Insightful)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about a year ago | (#43640353)

Gun related crimes are not being done using legally held weapons. You're no better off with a printed gun than you are with a black market S&W. In one case you leave traces of your presence in the black market, in the other you leave traces of downloading the schematics from the internet. In the long run owning a 3D printer and gun schematics will be equal to having the means to murder someone. If your average Joe Blow has an opportunity and a motive on top of that, he'd still get busted.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639999)

As far as gun laws, the horse is out of the barn. 3D printing technology is only going to improve and get access to more durable materials. It is also going to be cheaper. As much as I hate it, at this point there really isn't going to be any law that will prevent undetectable guns in 10 years or so. I expect security screenings to start to become a shitload more intrusive.

I think I feel like how people felt when the first nukes were detonated. They knew it retrospect that it was inevitable--someone would have figured it out since it was just putting together the science and engineering. They just wished nobody did.

Re:Not really (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#43640069)

While 3D printing looks cool and interesting in general, this is really far fetched. You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

And no, you can't really use this are argument against gun control laws.

An understanding of physics you say... we'll need to look into the school system to ensure a safer America for all.

Interesting synergies will appear (4, Funny)

ProzakLord (1087161) | about a year ago | (#43639931)

Now militia style groups mostly in rural areas are going to be recruiting geeks to operate the 3D printers. Anyone fancy making up a t-shirt saying: "Will print for moonshine"

Printing a gun is a crime.... (0, Flamebait)

Swistak (899225) | about a year ago | (#43639933)

... and buing it completelly legally for your kid is absolutelly alright. Welcome to America! Where only thing standing between you and realiable rifle is 7 day waiting period. At the same time God forbid you fail at making science expiriment - even if you're 15 year old girl - you'll be charged as an adult terrorist! Thank God I'm not living there

Re:Printing a gun is a crime.... (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43640163)

It's actually not a crime to print a gun (or otherwise manufacture one for personal use), which is why this guy did so openly and was not arrested.

And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639935)

The Gorn is inconsolable.

Anarchist and radical libertarian? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639937)

Don't care if OP likes Mr. Wilson or not, but spreading false information is simply childish. Cody Wilson is not an "anarchist". He is a CRYPTO-ANARCHIST. There is a tremendous difference. I would have thought the /. crowd would know the difference, but I guess ignorance knows no boundaries.

THE NIGGERS HAVE TAKEN MY BABY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639939)

Thankyou for reading at -1

thing to hold the bullet and firing pin (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43639949)

that's the gun this is.. and it exploded on second shot.

the design should use some metal pipe, imho.

Re:thing to hold the bullet and firing pin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640095)

> the design should use some metal pipe, imho.

Then it wouldn't be "fully 3-d printed then", would it, you fuckwit. Nor would it get through airport security, imbecile.

Re:thing to hold the bullet and firing pin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640209)

You seem to think he actually intends to design it for that, mongoloid.

Re:thing to hold the bullet and firing pin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640293)

Are you unaware that airsoft is a sport played by children that involves firing plastic bullets at each other?

A fully plastic "gun" is useless without metal ammunition.

Re:thing to hold the bullet and firing pin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640349)

I forget the name of the move. But in it a would be presidential assassin makes a plastic gun at home. He gets the ammo through security as a lucky rabbits foot on his key-chain. Am guessing even today something similar would work. If no explosives test are conducted. Of course there are many explosives that could be loaded into the gun that would pass through today's onsite testing.

3 D printing of guns can be done better (3, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43639985)

This guy doesn't do this right, if he wants to make better guns of higher quality he shouldn't be printing PARTS for guns, he should be doing something else, printing molds and figuring out ways to use thermal molding and composite materials, like carbon fibers and plastics to make really durable quality parts.

Re:3 D printing of guns can be done better (0)

udachny (2454394) | about a year ago | (#43640009)

Oh, and bullets, how about cartridges?

Print molds for cartridges, they are easy to cast from plastic.

The bullet itself can be made from marbles for example, not very good, but possible. You have a plastic gun, marble or granite bullets, just add Maynard tape primer instead of a percussion cap and catching, you are a terrorist :)

Re:3 D printing of guns can be done better (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year ago | (#43640041)

You don't need a 3d printer to make molds. Making molds would nullify the advantage of using a 3d printer: simplicity.

Unless, of course, somebody invents a 3d printer that can automate the entire process.

Re:3 D printing of guns can be done better (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43640087)

No, making molds doesn't nullify the advantage of using a 3D printer, it gives the 3D printer a real purpose - making other tools.

3D printers are terrible for mass production, there are much better tools for that, and if 3D printers can be used to build parts of machines that can be used for that and build molds and other things of that nature, then they can be part of your own production line. Isn't that a good idea, to own your tools of production? That's what makes you much more productive, it gives you ability to be your own manufacturer at some point and be a manufacturer for profit as well.

That's how and why capitalism and industrialisation made the world as wealthy as it never was before: capitalism is ownership and operation of private property (so you own and operate your tools of production) and it allows you to re-invest and build your productive capacity from your savings. So you invest into one machine and labour, eventually you make enough profits to invest into another machine, you can use your earlier machines to build newer machines, etc.

I think not everybody is interested in that, but those who are interested have a much better chance now than before.

Re:3 D printing of guns can be done better (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | about a year ago | (#43640283)

wow, you still really don't get it, do you? you have brought your sockpuppet [slashdot.org] back out because people have been rightfully downmodding you for trolling. if you would tone down the religious rhetoric of your posts and focus instead on factual information you would not be moderated down so often.

Re:3D printing of guns can be done better (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#43640137)

You don't need a 3d printer to make molds. Making molds would nullify the advantage of using a 3d printer: simplicity.

Unless, of course, somebody invents a 3d printer that can automate the entire process.

Don't rule it out completely. Using a 3d printer to make a mold of something I downloaded is within the reach of my finances and ability, while making a mold from other means might not be. That doesn't really help me make a gun though, as i'd need to inject my mold with metal so it would need to withstand high temperatures, and such a printer is maybe not within my reach.

You could print out the appropriate patterns to make a mold out of though, and the rest of the casting process is also simple enough

Seems easier just to buy or steal a gun though, if you really wanted one

Why is this a problem? (4, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | about a year ago | (#43639989)

The law says that its not illegal to produce a gun at home. People have been making guns at home for years.
Why is it suddenly a problem that someone can 3D print a gun instead of making one out of a block of metal with machine tools?

Re:Why is this a problem? (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year ago | (#43640015)

Level of entry - the 3D printed version is likely easier to make (requiring less skill in some areas)

Re:Why is this a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640221)

So only the rich or highly skilled should have the ability? Sounds a bit elitist to me.

Re:Why is this a problem? (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43640065)

Why is it suddenly a problem that someone can 3D print a gun

because when the price of the 3D printers will drop, and the guns CAD models become available anywhere on the Net, the first retarded person will be able to make one in no time and play with it in his closest mall or school.

Re:Why is this a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640077)

Cops putting people under visual surveillance is okay but cops attaching GPS transponders to everyone is not so much okay. Normally lowering the barriers to do something via technology results in a net gain but if it's so easy that even a child could make weapons just by clicking a mouse and pushing a few buttons, I am not so sure.

Re:Why is this a problem? (1)

will_die (586523) | about a year ago | (#43640267)

Doing out of metal would be ok, it is the creation of a gun that is not detectable which is against the law. They get around this by adding a block of metal, besides the firing pin, which makes it legal.

I'm scared. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639995)

When I went to high school in the early 90's; Saturday Night Specials were quite popular with drug dealers and little punk ass bitches that wanted to boast how dangerous they were. This ended when detectors were installed towards my senior year. The size of this 3d printed looks compareable. So how do you scan for this? We really don't need more guns contrary to arguement. People are always going to kill each other by some means already invented. So why do we need new ways? I'm not a pacifist. I like to fight but even I can see no practical beneficial need to become an armory courtesy of a printer that can do anything. There's something else wrong with our society and THAT' s exacerbating this. Fix that. Guns don't solve problems long term. A.B.

Re:I'm scared. (2)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year ago | (#43640309)

"There's something else wrong with our society and THAT' s exacerbating this."

unfortunately the dickheads that derive their bravery from behind a gun don't understand common sense. These are the same dick heads that start a fight over being "dis-respected" because they don't understand what respect is.

BBC has video - look like quite a recoil (5, Informative)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43640001)

Video here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185 [bbc.co.uk]

From the video, looks like despite the modest cartridge used, there's quite a kick. Guess the plastic is rather light.
So, no need to get excited folks; a one-shot weapon with really poor accuracy, which needs a 3D printer.
Thus more difficult and costly to produce, yet no more effective, than a 'saturday night special', 'zip gun' or 'bang stick', plans for which have been freely available for a long time.
Probably equally as likely to blow up in your face, too...

Re:BBC has video - look like quite a recoil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640073)

It is perfect for a stickup, or sneaking past metal detectors to shoot a snitch in court, or sneaking into a political rally. Future versions might be good enough to have multiple shots so they can be used in hostage situations or hijackings. Oh, and to get rid of the evidence, you can just burn the damn gun in a fireplace.

This is a game changer. Don't kid yourself. 10 years from now with advanced 3-D printers, anybody anywhere is going to be able to print up a decent and undetectable handgun. The worldwide security apparatus is going to have to change very fast.

Re:BBC has video - look like quite a recoil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640287)

Sneaking past metal detectors huh? I sure can't wait for cartridges that have plastic bullets and casings, and have propellant that bomb detecting machines don't notice.

Until then, your 9/11 doomsday scenario isn't likely to happen. Hell, it isn't likely to begin with.

"anarchist and radical libertarian" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640005)

This is the real story here. Someone has, for the first time in history, managed to be both an anarchist and a libertarian at the same time. Up until now they have been mutually exclusive.

Obvious Troll, but (1)

foma84 (2079302) | about a year ago | (#43640261)

You're an obvious troll, but I'll take the occasion to state a point here:
Freedom means nothing without stating what ehtical priciples are inspiring it. That's not how anarchy (the movements) work.

It really pisses me off that some random guy can develop printing guns for the sake of "freedom", calling himselp "anarchist", and people accounting him on that.

What's next? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year ago | (#43640017)

A printable nuclear missile?

Technology is fun and all, but I sure hope we'll never reach the point where people can print stuff like that in their basement.

Re:What's next? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640061)

A printable nuclear missile?

Technology is fun and all, but I sure hope we'll never reach the point where people can print stuff like that in their basement.

Hey, at least we're one step closer to solving the Fermi paradox!

What's the problem? (1)

Slyswede (945801) | about a year ago | (#43640039)

I don't really see home-made guns as a big problem. In fact, we all have hundreds of items in our homes that could be combined to form lethal devices. Strangely enough, most of us don't...

So is a home-made gun legal? Maybe in the US, but not in the more civilized parts of the world. It certainly wouldn't be legal for me without a proper license.

What is interesting in this case is that making it easy to create your own gun is likely to work against the motives of Defense Distributed and force the US to adopt more gun control. Maybe even looking at how other countries solve this problem. :)

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640241)

Let us know when you actually do "solve" it then :)

"up in arms about it" (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#43640049)

The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired

Shortly followed by the first fully 3D-printed pun.

Ridiculous legislation attempts & funny report (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43640055)

Legislating that guns must be detectable by metal detectors so that they cannot be brought onto airplanes......

I mean, if you haven't understood yet how retarded so many laws are and how much of a show it is for a politicians who is pushing for nonsense legislation to make a name for himself, just look at this one.

So it remains or becomes illegal to make fully plastic guns that cannot be detected, but how is it legal to bring guns on planes anyway? It's illegal right now (used to be legal in USA), so it doesn't matter if it's a plastic gun or any other gun. But the point is:

a person who wants to bring a plastic gun that he prints onto a plane is already committing an illegal act by taking the gun to the plane. This legislation does NOT prevent him from printing the gun and bringing it onto the plane.

What it does do it prevents people from legally printing plastic guns that they are not taking on planes. Understand?

This legislation is nonsense, it doesn't change anything. People who want to bring undetected plastic weapons on planes will not be stopped by that law.

For certain values of succesful (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43640067)

Of the four test shots it worked twice, misfired once and exploded once. Not exactly something I would want to rely upon.

News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640071)

So how long until we have news of the first killing by a 3d printed gun?
How long until they are used in a criminal activity?
How long until the guns are used in a mass killing?

The bar is pretty low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640081)

A lump of plastic that took months and is barely a "gun". This is what is supposed to change the world?

Why do we care about his political views? (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about a year ago | (#43640089)

"the anarchist and radical libertarian"

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The total number of fucks I give about anything Greenberg has to say is now exactly zero. I don't know who you're pandering to with such blatant manipulation, but I'm not sure the people who would fall for it are literate anyway.

Re:Why do we care about his political views? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43640171)

Why do we care about his political views?

Yeah, it's not like the looming possibility of mass circumvention of gun control laws is a political issue, or anything.

First person killed wiht a printed gun? (2, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#43640155)

This is a repost. I first put this up when the previous article about printed guns went up, and I was modded down to minus one million, which was no big surprise. Gun nuts live in a fantasy universe where they are John Wayne, and the bad guys wear black hats and are always destroyed by the guy in the white hat (i.e the gun owner). If you even hint that there are negative consequences from guns, they scream like you are trying to remove their dicks. So I post this again, and I expect the same mod down and moronic replies.

Sill, I would like one pro gun person to admit that a printed gun will kill somebody, and not just some drug dealing child molesting scum, but a real live human being who didn't deserve to die. Like a kid who thinks that it's a toy. So man up for once, and admit that guns kill people. Just face the truth once, and stop complaining that I'm a "stupid liberul", or that you have a constitutional right to own a gun. That's not relevant. Dead people are relevant. So if you have a shred of integrity, stop dodging the question. Who will be the first person to be murdered by a printed gun? And all the other examples that follow:

When will the first murder occur with a printed gun?

When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?

When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?

When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?

When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?

When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?

When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?

These are the real world events that no-one in the pro-gun world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if these will happen, but when.

Re:First person killed wiht a printed gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640189)

Guns can be used to kill people. A 3D printed gun will, at some point, be used to kill an innocent child.

Guess what? People die all the time. Someone being smashed in the head with a hammer is just as dead as someone who has been shot.

Now let's get down to business: would you like to touch my penis?

Re:First person killed wiht a printed gun? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year ago | (#43640347)

"Now let's get down to business: would you like to touch my penis?"

Can i touch it with my 3D printed gun acting as a hammer?????

Re:First person killed wiht a printed gun? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640257)

As a pro private gun ownership person I have no problem admitting that each of those things is likely to happen eventually if this technology reaches a reasonable level of effectiveness. My counter point is actually that people who want a deadly weapon will get one, gun or otherwise, and cause the same harm. Pretending otherwise does not make it less wrong to take rights and property away from people who will never commit any of those crimes.

What's the big deal? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43640159)

Does ANYONE think that someone who wanted a gun for nefarious reasons could only now get one?

Die by the sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640165)

Is it just me or does anyone else have that feeling that Cody Wilson has a death by gunshot wound in his future?
I mean this in the greek tragedy sense, not the conspiracy sense.

that's the reason why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640197)

...the US elites are freaking out about gun controls NOW and not 20 years ago.

With this tech in 15 years from now, most will just copy/paste their guns.
So sales will drop though ownership will rise, massive wise.

No wonder why deep US cointel is framing all those patsies... You can feel they are rushing to complete their (multiple) agendas.

Undetectable firearm act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640201)

Oh noes... Teh Undetectable Firearm act! Terrorism thwarted again!

Oh wait... they are ignoring all the laws so I guess maybe they will ignore that one too and just leave out the metal. The pin could be easily made of a composite.

End Result (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640233)

We have been able to build our own firearms for our own use all along. The only thing this will accomplish is that congress will get the bright idea that we shouldn't be able to do that anymore... and make it illegal. Yeah, thanks for that.

TL;DR (2)

fearofcarpet (654438) | about a year ago | (#43640255)

From TFA:

In the Forbes article, other than "a single nail that is used as a firing pin", the gun also includes another nonprintable part. The group, the article says, added a six-ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the undetectable firearms act. The act, Congressman Steve Israel says, is set to expire at the end of the year. "The very least we should do, as a matter of common sense, is extend the undetectable firearms act so that a plastic gun or component can't be brought onto planes because a metal detector can't detect them," notes Israel.

I could never understand why people have no problem with a law that categorically bans ALL guns that are made from non-ferrous materials, and/or that do not look like a gun by X-Ray, but run around like crazy people talking about armed citizens overthrowing the government over limitations on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines--or f***ing background checks. The only way a citizens group would ever have a chance at affecting change in government with guns would be by assassinating a politician--you have no chance against the military or police, sorry. And the Undetectable Firearms Act was written pretty much with that problem in mind (and, obviously other public places like airports.) Why then aren't people pooping their pants over this clear restriction to the supposed core principle of the Second Amendment?

Seriously, where are the protests and demonstrations against the banning of plastic guns 25 years ago? Where were all the threats to vote politicians out of office for violating their constitutional rights? If the answer to the theater shooting in Aurora was that movie-goers should have been carrying guns, and the answer to school shootings is armed teachers, then why not airplanes? Wouldn't we all feel safer if everyone in an airplane was carrying an undetectable plastic gun? I mean, what can box cutters do against bullets? This cognitive dissonance (and the total capitulation of the trampling of the rest of the Bill of Rights) perplexes me.

(This is a re-post because I genuinely want to know the answer)

but can you print bullets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640317)

guns are useless without ammo

Basically a Zip gun (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43640343)

These things have been around forever (image google it). The predecessors usually lasted for more than one or two shots however. But they have been fashioned from every imaginable material. The only reason this is going to gain any legislation traction will be due to A) frenzied knee-jerk reactionaries running amok screaming "Think of the children!" B) Politicians proxying legislation from corporations with an agenda in one direction or the other. It's stupid to give this thing much more attention than slapping a "21 only" label on it. Anything else will be a waste of time, money and energy.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...