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!

Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the please-be-careful-out-there dept.

Your Rights Online 656

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it can spread via the Internet and entirely circumvent gun control laws. Two days after that digital weapon's blueprint first appeared online, it seems to be fulfilling that promise. Files for the printable gun known as that 'Liberator' have been downloaded more than 100,000 times in two days, according to Defense Distributed, the group that created it. Those downloads were facilitated by Kim Dotcom's startup Mega, which Defense Distributed is using to host the Liberator's CAD files. And it's also been uploaded to the Pirate Bay, where it's one of the most popular files in the filesharing site's uncensorable 3D printing category."

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

Yawn (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674927)

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

Re:Yawn (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674997)

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

Re:Yawn (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675185)

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

Re: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675191)

But guns aren't illegal in the United States. Why would our congress be concerned with this?

Re: Yawn (3)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675233)

They're not. But they ARE concerned with pirated movies, music, and software.

Re: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675293)

But guns aren't illegal in the United States. Why would our congress be concerned with this?

Because you are attempting to manufacture something that they cannot track or tax appropriately. The latter probably has them more up in arms than anything.

Re:Yawn (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675373)

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

I think there is a more interesting question. Kim Dotcom had a lot of support on Slashdot and across the internet when it was the US government pursuing him for allegations of criminal copyright infringement. How much of that support will evaporate now that he has been linked to Defense Distributed's gun project? I would think there will be at least some who will turn up their nose at this. There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675377)

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

Ah, correction. This is the hipster lazy-ass way of basically doing anything, with absolutely minimum effort required (physical or mental) to create it.

Re:Yawn (1, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675093)

Just like tablets didn't exist before the iPad.

Here's the difference... (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675103)

BEFORE: Skilled Blue Collared metal workers could make a zip gun. As manufacturing is almost gone in America, this was a dying breed going the way of the winged water buffalo.

NOW: The huge spat of nerds and computer programmers now have the means to accomplish what formerly required a moderately skilled metal worker.

NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!

Re:Here's the difference... (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675151)

What skill? You can use a drill and screw together pipe fittings?

Re:Here's the difference... (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675207)

No kidding. Any idiot can walk into Home Depot and buy everything you need to make a zip gun in about 20 minutes. It's not like you need to weld and hand forge the damned thing. It's just a pipe and something to strike the primer with.

Re:Here's the difference... (2)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675187)

Except that it never really took skill. As a young lad I made several (incredibly dangerous) guns out of scrap metal. All I had was a hacksaw, a drill, and some files. I could probably whip one out in under 30 minutes if properly motivated, and it would survive more than a couple rounds.

Re:Here's the difference... (1)

telchine (719345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675193)

NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!

I'm imagining a high noon showdown between Linus and RMS

Re:Here's the difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675349)

"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"

"Jeez, take a chill pill. And a bath."

Re:Yawn (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675361)

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

The difference is, things like "zip guns" are actual guns that fire. This story is about plans that could potentially be used to make a gun. Are there 100k 3D printers that could use these plans in existence?

I'm guessing most of these downloads will live the life of most warez and media downloaded. It will sit forgotten in someone's download folder, gathering dust, until it is eventually deleted or lost unused.

100k downloads translate into how many guns printed? I'd put the over/under at 20.

uncensorable? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674929)

Not when somebody can drop an anchor on your cable...

This is the best way of gun control (4, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674947)

Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674995)

natural selection at work soon

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675015)

By that line of reasoning its natural selection when you disarm yourself.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675153)

At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes.

Zero have been killed by an armed intruder.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675217)

Why are there so many suicides at that high school? The problem isn't the firearms, but why are there so many suicidal youth? Isn't that the big problem you seem to be overlooking in your quest to blame guns?

Suicidal people will find other methods of harming themselves, attacking the instrument used to attempt suicide is sort of missing the point, no?

Re:This is the best way of gun control (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675411)

Suicidal people will find other methods of harming themselves, attacking the instrument used to attempt suicide is sort of missing the point, no?

Not true at all. If suicide is easy and convenient, the suicide rate will be much higher. Nothing is easier than pointing a handgun at your head and giving the trigger a little tug. Using a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is only slightly harder, but they are used in suicides far less. Homes with handguns have higher suicide rates than homes with long guns, which have higher suicide rates than homes with no guns. So claiming that suicidal people will "find a way" is not true.

I own a couple long guns (a rifle and a shotgun) and I am a strong supporter of gun rights. I accept a higher suicide rate as a price we pay for living in a free society. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing that there is no trade off, and freedom has no cost.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675261)

How many laws have you demanded to evaluate the mental health of the kids in the school?

Zero? Yeah, thought so.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675029)

Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

Just because you find weapons have no purpose in your life doesn't mean that you can decry someone who appreciates and finds value in weapons.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675099)

When guns are killing more than 30,000 people every year? Yes. Yes I can.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1, Insightful)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675165)

Not sure where you get your statistics of 30,000 people dying per year from guns, but even assuming it's an accurate statistic (huge leap of faith here), according to the US Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf [census.gov] (see here's the difference of just putting a number out there versus data to back it up) 46,800 people were killed in the US alone in auto accidents in 2012. Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles? It would save 16,800 more lives per year than your "fact" of 30,000 people killed by guns each year.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675341)

I'm all in favor of focusing on preventing automobile deaths. In fact, if we scrapped the entire "war on terror" and used those hundreds of billions to build out public transport infrastructure befitting a first-world nation, we'd be doing far better in the "saving lives" department. However, a significant difference between cars and guns: cars provide a heck of a lot more than 50% more useful functionality to society than guns, so they're perhaps "worth" slightly more carnage. Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675443)

However, a significant difference between cars and guns: cars provide a heck of a lot more than 50% more useful functionality to society than guns, so they're perhaps "worth" slightly more carnage. Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

Oh I don't know....Every time I bite into a juicy steak, I thank the gun that put that killed that cow quickly.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675347)

Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

Because restrictions on automobiles might inconvenience them, so it's not up for discussion. Same goes for any mention of the deaths caused by swimming pool accidents.

Further supporting my contention that gun-grabbers couldn't give two shits about 'protecting the children' or saving lives.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (2)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675395)

Because automobiles provide a useful purpose- bringing people to and from jobs, entertainment, etc. It has a positive effect on people's lives, and we decide its worth the cost. Guns provide no use aside from hunting, which a tiny minority of guns are actually used for.

Also, on a per capita basis its ridiculously the other way. The majority of people don't own guns, but do own cars. So a far larger percentage of gun owners cause deaths than car owners.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675455)

Based on your "useful purpose" example of bringing people to and from "entertainment", then my guns provide the exact same service. I go shooting weekly as "entertainment", so they provide me the same "useful purpose" as your automobile does to you. Thank you for arguing my point for me.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (4, Insightful)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675429)

Gun deaths in the US in 2010: 11,078 homicides, 19,392 suicides, and 606 unintentional killings.

Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

Because that's a stupid argument, and you already know the answer.

In the vietnam war, 58,000 american soldiers lost their lives. A large number (but not all) US citizens campaigned for US troups to pull out, and eventually that happened. You see the thing about a democracy is, that you make decisions based on the majority, not the minority. It so happens that an overwhelming majority or americans believe that cars are a good thing, and should not be banned. The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree). They might not agree on everything, but there is general agreement for tighter restrictions. You might not like this, you might not agree with it, but unfortunately, you live in a democracy and therefore have to accept societies wishes I'm afraid. The best thing you can do, is stop making trite arguments, and start making sensible suggestions for compromises that would both be acceptable for you, and for the anti-gun lobby.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675167)

Yes because without guns people would stop killing and injuring each other amirite.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675315)

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.

I do not believe in the "guns do not promote injury, therefore they can be safely allowed" argumentation. Gun-ownership should (as should ownership of anything) be a question of freedom, not a question of damage minimization. (Because the regulators will always win the latter. More regulation will always give less injuries. And if it doesn't, it was because the regulations weren't oppressive and invasive enough.)

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675391)

You would still do better, much better, on a number of fronts, by tightening up DRIVING LICENSE qualifications.

Go with the data. Cars are much, much more dangerous than guns. By (slowly) ending the driving culture you would save on lives, power, pollution, space, what's left of my hearing and perhaps my sanity.

Now, get off my road!

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675435)

Let's all just live in padded cells and eat jello then. The world's a dangerous place; In fact, it has a 100% mortality rate.
How about we prosecute criminals rather than persecute everyone.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0, Flamebait)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675173)

When guns are killing more than 30,000 people every year? Yes. Yes I can.

By that logic then, you must ban the automobile. It killed over 32000 people last year alone.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (4, Insightful)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675339)

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675243)

Which guns? All the ones I own just sit there until acted upon by a human.

I keep hearing tales of these guns that kill people all on their own, but I've yet to encounter one myself.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675307)

30,000? And where did you get that number?

Re:This is the best way of gun control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675179)

doesn't mean that you can decry someone

I'm pretty sure they can, as evidenced by the fact they just did.

I appreciate natural selection.... (2)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675197)

...taking out anybody stupid enough to fire one of these things.

Why bother, when you can go to wal mart and buy a real gun? That's a question only a Teabilly Loon can answer.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675229)

Just because you find weapons have no purpose in your life doesn't mean that you can decry someone who appreciates and finds value in weapons.

Actually, I can, when there "appreciation" ends up causing harm to others who don't wish to consent to the risk.

For example, there are people who like to drive a fast car. I don't mind, except when I'm on the public highway, then I reserve the right to decry their thoughtlessness. Or when somebody likes to smoke, I will tell them I do not wish to suffer the harm caused by their choice.

But hey, why don't you tell the pro-gun lobby to stop decrying those who do not appreciate or find value in weapons? Heck, why don't you tell people to stop making fun of comic book collectors?

Oh yeah, you won't.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675051)

Let drunk drivers drive and they will get themselves killed.

Problem is, they harm others and don't consider this. Just consider someone drunk or angry with a gun in their hand.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (2, Interesting)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675063)

Aside from the fact that you assume anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment is too incompetent to evaluate and safely utilize this technology, you also demonstrate that this whole argument really has nothing to do with saving lives. You're perfectly willing to sacrafice innocent lives so long as their loss serves your political agenda.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675301)

Aside from the fact that you assume anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment is too incompetent to evaluate and safely utilize this technology

It's not the 2A proponents. It's the other people near them who are too incompetent. One of them will go crazy and steal the 2A proponent's gun and cause serious damage with it (usually killing the 2A proponent)

you also demonstrate that this whole argument really has nothing to do with saving lives. You're perfectly willing to sacrafice innocent lives so long as their loss serves your political agenda.

That's how it should be. Are YOU going to sacrifice innocent lives to further his agenda? Of course not. This is America, and we believe in personal responsibility. he's taking his political agendas into his own hands. You 2A proponents should learn from him.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675303)

Nope, Hentes is perfectly willing to make an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment about people stupid enough to attempt to use this gun, and is in no way representative of any particular political agenda.

Flippancy, it happens on the Internet.

Contrast Hentes to say, the NRA, and its spokesman, and you'll notice that one is a representative of a larger group, while the other just happens to be another smart-mouth.

But hey, let's see who is willing to sacrifice innocent lives. Whose reasoning was it that you can't prevent all possible gun deaths, so no laws should be passed?

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675109)

If there weren't guns in America. (Be it civilian, police and military.) You wouldn't be here...

Re:This is the best way of gun control (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675225)

...unless you are Native American. Then there would be a lot more of you here.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675239)

Really? Places with no guns have zero people? Aside from pedantic arguments that alternate prior histories would produce alternate people (so "you" in specific would not be here, but a lot of different people would), I'd say the entire history of human civilization before guns (and continued existence of humans in regions of less or no guns) flatly contradicts the idea that guns are a basic necessity of life.

Re:This is the best way of gun control (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675209)

This is why you and folks like you have zero credibility in your fruitless and ignorant quest to disarm law-abiding American citizens. People who keep firearms are "gun nuts". Your arguments were already terrible and embarrassing, but when you add ad hominem attacks to your already laughable position, it's hard to imagine why no one takes you seriously.

boohoo (1)

mnajem (2874111) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674951)

a gun for retards.

Circumvent Gun Control Laws?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674957)

It's a good thing the Bad Guys that abuse firearms follow those laws!

Whatever would we do without gun control

Bullets.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674965)

Good luck 3D printing them.

gumby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674975)

You can also 3D print Gumby!

Re:gumby (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675119)

Really, cause Gumby is supposed to be flexible. And most of the output I've seen is hard plastic.

Guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674983)

one up the bum, no harm done

So many people miss the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674993)

Before people go on a rant about how unusable a plastic gun is, making a good gun was not the point of this. The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs. What good are gun laws when someone with no mechanical skills at all can make one in their kitchen?

Re:So many people miss the point. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675007)

I think you missed the point here.

Re:So many people miss the point. (4, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675149)

Really, cause I think he nailed it.

I'd also point out that the very first "metal" guns weren't all that safe and reliable as well. So this is a generation 1 prototype. Consider in 20 years, when 3D printers are in most middle class homes (if we still have a middle class). What do you think 20 years of tweaking and discovery will do? Might these become more reliable, & safer,... there was a time that folk though using a polymer frame on a handgun was ludicrus. Glocks and many others have shown that is NOT the case.

Re:So many people miss the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675095)

Before people go on a rant about how unusable a plastic gun is, making a good gun was not the point of this. The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs. What good are gun laws when someone with no mechanical skills at all can make one in their kitchen?

Yes because guns are smuggled *out* of mexico where they wreak havoc on the fabric of society... Think you have it backwards. Add to that the fact that the US doesn't really spend any money trying to take guns away from anyone (unless they have committed some other crime) and this whole thing is a complete non-issue. It's a first world solution looking for a problem. Give repressed minorities in third world countries an easy way to arm themselves and maybe the world will give a shit.

Re:So many people miss the point. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675161)

If there were laws against guns, then we could prosecute the numb-nuts who put these plans up on the internet. We could arrest people carrying guns *before* they kill our kids in our schools. We could arrest criminals trying to acquire guns before they commit crimes with them. *Real* laws would help. The problem is they haven't restricted the clause in the constitution to be relative to the context in which it was written. A "Gun" back then was a flintlock that could be fired about once every 1 to 2 minutes. Those are the "guns" that they had in mind. The public owning guns is still a silly idea (because, sorry, the public owning guns isn't going to cause any military on the planet to even blink in terms of stopping military aggression), but if it were restricted to flintlocks, we would have a whole lot fewer graves being dug every year.

Re:So many people miss the point. (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675203)

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Next up: downloadable and printable schematics for a uranium enrichment facility, because you know, what good are nuclear laws as established by the IAEA, when anybody and their grandmother can make a nuclear bomb in their kitchen?

Re:So many people miss the point. (4, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675263)

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

Re:So many people miss the point. (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675345)

You're absolutely right. We should repeal these oppressive laws against improvised explosives while we're at it. (that wasn't sarcasm, btw)

Re:So many people miss the point. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675383)

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Indeed - just look at how little gun crime there is in places like Iran and North Korea.

Oh, were those not the nations you were thinking of?

Just downloaded (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675021)

It's 2.12 MB (2.02 MiB), so it's not like it would break the bank, even if it wasn't hosted by Kimmy.
Link to the Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.sx] , or you can add this to your Torrent software:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6c4089ac6c134f1b2dff18499658b228d9eb2657&dn=Liberator+-+First+3D+Printable+Gun&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

STL files.

Re:Just downloaded (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675031)

Fuck, that should be something like, you need a program to open STL files [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Just downloaded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675143)

I like the nickname Kimmy. Kimmy dotCommy!

Oh Noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675043)

I've also heard that each downloaded blueprint can be used at least 5000 times. That's a half-billion guns (or more!) that just got downloaded. Er, descriptions of guns that got downloaded. Whatever. Just imagine how many guns you could make if you had all 100,000 copies of these blueprints (and a gun factory that could produce usable barrels).

Sharable, reusable blueprints. Wow. What will these crazy kids think up next.

How many printed? (3, Interesting)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675055)

100,000 sounds like a lot of downloads, but I would bet that less than 10% will actually go through the process of printing one. Of those printed, many hobbyists will just do it to see if it's possible. How many people are going to be willing to fire one?

Re:How many printed? (1)

tocsy (2489832) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675413)

This was very similar to my question: how many people, out of the 100,000 downloads, actually have a 3D printer or access to one? They're not cheap - it's probably more cost effective (not to mention more reliable) to just buy a regular gun. I understand the argument that this raises concerns about proliferation of firearms (and I share some of those same concerns) but I feel as if 3D printing of guns will probably be a relatively small issue. I think it's most likely a fad that will be relegated to nothing more than a novelty as time goes on... but who knows.

Re:How many printed? (1)

AC-x (735297) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675449)

I doubt 10,000 people have access to a high quality enough 3D printer to actually print a usable gun (i.e. one that doesn't blow up in your hand), the team that created this model used a commercial grade printer, not your average plastic extruder printer.

Log This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675059)

Up next, cross-referencing offending IP's physical address to a criminal DB. If the DMCA can track down offending grandma's - why can't we find our needle in the haystack?

Which law? (3, Informative)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675061)

Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent? AFAIK, exchanging blueprints isn't illegal.
So long as you're not a felon or selling guns you've printed, no laws have been broken.

Re:Which law? (5, Informative)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675131)

Not even printing and assemblng the weapon breaks gun control law. You need no license or certification to produce a firearm, unless that weapon is a class3 (fully auto, cannons, sawed off shotguns, mortars, etc.), or you intend to sell it.

Re:Which law? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675181)

Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent?

Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America [forbes.com]

. . . current law already allows home hobbyists to build their own firearms provided they are for personal use only (and not for sale). Such guns are already “untraceable.” 3D-printing doesn’t change that basic fact — it merely allows a wider range of hobbyists without specialized machine shop skills to do what’s already legal. . . more [forbes.com]

Dramatic much? (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675067)

entirely circumvent gun control laws

In countries where that are significant gun control laws, I doubt that this is going to change much. Such countries also have other laws that control other things. In the US this would be a very expensive way to circumvent laws that do not exist. Any FFL compliance is voluntary. Anyone can sell gun to anyone on the street. The only prosecutions that occur is when there is knowledge that the sale would otherwise be regulated. I have seen sales go off on school property with no repercussions. Even if new laws are passed, the NRA will water them down like they always have to make it trivial to aquite the toys that the nuts like to play with. Of course it will continue to be non trivial to acquire something that one could actually defend oneself.

This is interesting because it reduces the skill needed to assemble a weapon to something the average adult can do. In many cases we are safe because real weapons requires a level of skill not accessible to the average adult. The average adult does not have the skill to weaponize biological agents. The average adult does not have the skill to weaponize household chemicals.

The average adult does have the skill to go to the NRA gun show in Houston and buy a rifle. The average adult probably does not have the funds or skill to successfully print a gun. As a person who has designed for and used a 3D Printer, it is a non trivial process.

As I said, outside the US this may be a game changer. Assuming that there are not other regulations to prevent it.

Bullet control (3, Insightful)

ehud42 (314607) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675073)

Not to say that DIY'ers can't get around this, but all them fancy guns need fancy bullets. Home made guns will also need decent bullets. So, why not tighten up bullet control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw [youtube.com]

(It's Chris Rock)

I realize lots of hunters, etc reload their own, but I'm not aware of too many DIY'ers who are able to make reliable primers (might be wrong) - so maybe just control the sale and distribution of primers?

Re:Bullet control (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675351)

Skate to where the puck's gonna be. If primers are banned or restricted, plans for improvising replacements will be widely available.

Conversion rate = low: (2)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675101)

And, out of those 100K+ downloads, what fraction of a percent will actually get printed out, and what fraction of those will actually get assembled to the point of working?

Sounds like the Drake Equation (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675321)

That sounds like the Drake Equation [wikipedia.org] used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations. You have the first three steps...

1. How many people will download it? (solved)
2. How many people will print it?
3. How many will assemble it?
4. How many will fire it?
5. How many will actually use it to further a crime?
6. How many will cause injury with it in the commission of a violent crime?
7. How many will kill somebody with it?

I'm guessing it's going to round to zero by about step 5.

I am surprised the editors didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675115)

mention bitcoin and raspberry pi.

Uhm (4, Insightful)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675137)

DISCLAIMER: I am a godless liberal in some respects, so I might be biased...but this is becoming like bitcoin, guys. A 3D printed gun is cool to me as a demonstration of the advanced state of the technology, but we don't need a story of even little happening with TEH 3D PRONTED GUNNS (GUBERMIENT, etc).

Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675281)

Let's return to a site for nerds

Too late. Slashdot long ago made the transition from tech site to tech culture site. (Why do you think there are so many "wtf is bitcoin" posts on every Bitcoin thread? Could it be because Slashdot no longer attracts a particularly tech-savvy constituency?)

Slashdot, these days, is just a comment-focused version of Wired.

Re:Uhm (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675401)

...
Presented by Dice.com

Thanks to Kim Dotcom? (1)

fekmist (2857907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675201)

Thanks to Kim Dotcom? I'd say it's more appropriate to say it's thanks to the internet as a whole. It doesn't matter where it was uploaded, the people that downloaded it in the first 2 days knew about it long before its release. If anything this is yet another misleading headline to make him look like he's doing something illegal, which he isn't.

Needs special printer. (1)

syntaxterror7 (2688969) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675245)

If you read / watch all the info you will see they used a special printer that provides greater than normal structure to its 3d models. I am waiting for someone to try this on a home extruder. I don't think it is going to go well. I'm sure the one armed man will be on the news soon.

The great thing about printable guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675255)

The great thing about this new era of printable guns (and I'm not the first person to make this point) is that it turns gun rights into an information freedom problem - you know, information wants to be free, no censorship [of firearm models, 3D CAD drawings, or what have you], etc - and thus it welds the gun-rights and information-anarchy crowds together.

Jolly good.

How about society does this (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675259)

Kill with a printed gun = mandatory death sentence.

There ends the problem with printing weapons.

Re:How about society does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675399)

you must have a problem with life and death in that country...really the only thing you can think of is more violence?
do you also think that the 2 years old girl killed by the 5 years old brother would still be alive if she was armed too?

Re:How about society does this (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675433)

Didn't realize Kim Jong Un had a /. account...

Summary is wrong (3, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675329)

The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it ... entirely circumvent[s] gun control laws.

I'm sorry, that is just false. In my state, Massachusetts, for example, you need a license to *possess* any firearm.

All 3D-printable weapons really circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show. Well, that and whatever state laws may require a license to buy a gun but not to own or carry it. (Those may or may not exist; if they do then they seem pretty stupid.)

It would be smart to at least check what the laws in your state actually are, before you print one of these puppies out.

Thanks to Kim Dotcom? (1)

AC-x (735297) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675335)

How about thanks to the media and legal hoo-ha around the whole thing? I bet most people wouldn't have heard of the project if it hadn't been reported on so much (see also: Streisand effect).

Probably mostly reporters (1)

Optic (6803) | about a year and a half ago | (#43675381)

I'm sure most of the downloads were by reporters looking to write a sensational story.

100k downloads of CAD files (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675397)

followed by 100k downloads of AutoCAD + crack.zip

Next article: 100K severed hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43675447)

Steel barrels aren't controlled by the government. Just go buy one.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?