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!

Bill Regulating 3D Printed Guns Announced In NYC

timothy posted about a year ago | from the more-equal-animals dept.

United States 322

New submitter BioTitan writes "New York City may be the first state to crack down on 3D printed guns. Two pieces of legislation were introduced on June 13, one in the City Council that only allows licensed gunsmiths to print the guns, and another in the State Assembly that would make it illegal for anyone to print a gun. Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, told The Epoch Times, 'Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.'"

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

to be expected (2)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about a year ago | (#43994333)

They're just shooting from the tip..

Re:to be expected (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43994879)

WTF? to crack down on 3D printed guns? Is gun 3D printing so pervasive already?
I'm yet to hear/see/read reports of self-injuries/deaths cause by exploding plastic guns, and the very existence of the Darwin awards shows that stupidity in not as rare in this world as one (still Bloomberg?) would like us to think.

It's incredible to me (-1, Troll)

DumbMarketingGuy (171031) | about a year ago | (#43994341)

That despite gun ownership being enshrined in the US constitution, that leftists and atieists of all stripes are still hell bend on depriving ordinary people of their right to self defense.

They will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when Obama's storm troopers round them up and ship them to a FEMA camp.

Re:It's incredible to me (0, Insightful)

DumbMarketingGuy (171031) | about a year ago | (#43994371)

Also typical that this gets auto moderated to -1

Re:It's incredible to me (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994695)

Why, it's just an another misinformed post by another retarded right-winger.

Isn't there some pretty big rule in the bible about not killing, or have you justified that away in your world of irrationality?

Re:It's incredible to me (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#43994381)

They will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when Obama's storm troopers round them up and ship them to a FEMA camp.

Why should I worry? It's not like the government is tracking every website I visit and every person I talk to, how would they know if I've even downloaded this liberator gun, much less made one?

(oh wait...)

Re:It's incredible to me (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43994503)

Do everything over TOR and they'll never get y6796t7fcv gh. ck k.hgc g.khf

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994527)

Do everything over TOR

The problem is that if they're recording every connection between every computer, it's trivial to connect the path your packet took through tor and correlate it with an exit node, especially if you download something big enough to take multiple packets, especially if you don't restart the download several times to build new proxy chains.

Re:It's incredible to me (3, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43994747)

How can you be certain that TOR isn't compromised? I admit that it's a paranoid view to have, but TOR is a very tempting target and lately the paranoid are being proved right on a daily basis.

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year ago | (#43994807)

And even if they were, it's not like they're doing it to see if you fit the ever-expanding definition of, say, a "terrorist" so they can drag you off indefinitely without due process to torture and eventually kill you.

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994973)

So it's like the lottery and nobody ever wins that...oh, wait.

Re:It's incredible to me (1, Flamebait)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43994383)

Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.

Re:It's incredible to me (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43994639)

"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"

Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.

Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.

"Trust us, we're from the Government"

Re:It's incredible to me (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43994769)

You do realize that one can be a good leftist and anti-government or pro-small-government, don't you?

I'm anti-government, but I'm also anti-capitalism (a very clear sign that the person is likely to be a good leftist).

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994901)

Most of this post is totally true. BUT: if Americans didn't rise up against Bush Jr when he lied to the country and the world to start a war in Iraq, and the fifth estate failed almost totally to expose it, when would the second amendment's ultimate check on power ever get used? It's clearly anachronistic.

Re:It's incredible to me (0, Redundant)

mjtaylor24601 (820998) | about a year ago | (#43994905)

Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you.

You know what else would give you some protection from a tyrannical overreaching government? Landmines, RPGs, and nuclear warheads. Yet there are regulations restricting access to all of those things, despite the fact that the 2nd amendment says very clearly that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (I read nothing specifically about guns in there). So why is it OK to regulate nuclear warheads but not handguns?

Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Not for nothing, but I think at least part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment was so that, if necessary, you all could form a militia to keep the King of England from messing with your business.

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994931)

I love how this whole in-your-face speaking truth to power approach is a valid strategy in your mind. Denigrating countrymen as good leftists, or whatever, is totally going to wake the people up.

Re:It's incredible to me (4, Insightful)

gregulator (756993) | about a year ago | (#43994669)

I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special

What are you talking about? Firearms are literally the best thing for defense from armed assailants.

I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun,

Then it is clear that you do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution.

Re:It's incredible to me (3, Interesting)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year ago | (#43994711)

Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.

Just wait until the current president is voted out of office and the next republican is in office. You will be doubly-sorry this stuff was started then when it's used to chase down and out women who have had abortions, people that don't go to church, and all kinds of other sinners.

Who's got guns won't matter when the feds decide to use information to destroy you. Gonna shoot back at a web page with your mom's three abortions listed on it? HA!

Your disregard for portions of the Constitution will cause the downfall of all of the Constitution.

Re:It's incredible to me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994957)

don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

see definition 2.

A militia is the constitutional sense is a voluntary force called up from the citizens who bring their own guns and resources (cloths food etc). Please go back and review the revolutionary war. Go see what they were pissed off about go see how they started fighting. There are 3 documents you should read. The constitution, the deceleration of independence, and the magna carta. They were rebelling against an autocratic system where they had no rights. The very rights people like you think we dont/shouldnt have. The first 10 of the bill of rights was put into place very carefully as to thwart the very injustices that the english crown was ruling its people with at the time. They are very well thought out. I am amazed at how easy they are to read. How easy it is to see the sorts of things they nipped in the bud by using these laws. Not that it matters our gov seems keen on ignoring huge swaths of it for our 'safety'. Which other rights are you willing to give up?

I personally own 0 guns. I take owning one very seriously and am not sure if I want that responsibility. My wife has asked that we buy one. I am holding her off to see if it something she really wants (or if she is falling prey to hysteria). I personally think I do not need one where I live. However, I do not begrudge someone who feels they need one.

Also maybe he is trolling. But look at it from his POV all he sees is his group screaming that 'obama wants to take yer guns', then he watches TV and sees sure enough they are proposing another law to do just that. He sees the 50/50 vote in the congress split down party lines on this issue. Perhaps he has a right to be mad about it?

Re:It's incredible to me (2)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#43995103)

don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun

Many gun control proponents read the 2nd amendment that way, and on its surface its not hard to read it that way. But the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton) go into more detail about what was intended; that both "regulated militias" and individual gun ownership rights are necessary as protection from government tyranny:

It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power....To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

To try to interpret the Constitution out of context without reviewing (basically) the supporting documentation does it a disservice. Indeed the Supreme Court has often invoked the Federalist Papers as evidence of original intent of both the Framers and Ratifiers.

If nothing else "select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." seems to describe the new left and the new right pretty well.

Re:It's incredible to me (3, Informative)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43994413)

A large number of atheists are libertarian, not leftist. We leave all religions behind, including the religions of the left and right, which, like any good religion, foists groupthink for the purpose of seizure of power for the leaders.

As with more normal religions, the best policy is to let people be free.

Re:It's incredible to me (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43994683)

As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.

Re:It's incredible to me (2, Insightful)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43994821)

At first I thought this was a joke, it was a much better comment like that. What else is do you like better when it's the Libertarian version? I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say everything?

Re:It's incredible to me (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43994801)

A good number of Libertarians think they can speak for everyone. You seem to be one of them. I would speculate more Atheists are humanist.

Re:It's incredible to me (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994453)

Not sure that 'atieists' have to do with this issue, other than probably being someone who believes differently than you do on that particular issue and so who you believe probably doesn't agree with you on others too. But nice attempt at trolling.

Re:It's incredible to me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994553)

It's always funny to see someone suggest that libertarianism eschews religion. Particularly when they conflate political leanings with religious tendencies. Freedom is no less religious than any other political dimension. Pragmatism and many-voice democratism are the only irreligious politics.

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#43994965)

The GOP is a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be atheists or terrist muslims since Evangelism is the only true religion to them.

Re:It's incredible to me (0)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43994491)

Owning gun != Self defense. You'd still be able to keep a chainsaw, or a suit of plate mail, or one of those annoying yip-yip-yip armpit dogs.

Re:It's incredible to me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994543)

Aww, is poor little DumbMarketingGuy scared?

Seriously, you have to be a scared little bitch to feel the need to keep a gun for self defense, and mentally challenged to think it'll stop you from any government takeover.

I live in a large urban environment and still wonder what makes dipshits like you feel that you need an AK47 to protect your suburban home. Scared of the boogie man, are we?

Re:It's incredible to me (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43994645)

I don't own a gun for protection, I own them because they are fun to shoot make really loud noises explosions in fact and put holes in things. What more could a growing boy ask for?

For home defense I have a mental map of my house can find my way round in the dark and will use that and whatever blunt object is closest to me. If there's more than 1 intruder I wouldn't want to risk one getting away because he heard me shooting.

I'm like that really rare watch dog, you won't know I'm there until you are fully in and I'm blocking your exit and by then it's too late.

Re:It's incredible to me (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43994865)

Gobshite indeed. Interestingly it is a British word. Which makes me wonder all the more. I don't know what kind of watch dog you are talking about, surely the whole point of a watch dog is you know that it's there and it makes a lot of noise to scare off intruders? Much like your post makes you sound. When you're all grown you can put away your childish things.

Re:It's incredible to me (3, Informative)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43994805)

You scared of owning guns? It's not about being scared of the boogie man as you put it, it's being prepared for the worst. Guns are fun to shoot and being able to handle them and use them is a skill everyone should have. You might live under a rock, but peoples homes do get invaded daily. Thiefs don't go to the ghettos to rob people they go to suburban neighborhoods.. Is it likely to happen to you?? Statistically no, but if it does and you have no skills or tools to protect yourself you become a victim. This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.

Re:It's incredible to me (1)

Shirogitsune (1810950) | about a year ago | (#43995027)

And yet you post as AC, huh?

It's less about being scared of the alleged 'boogie man' than it is about being realistic. Alot of things can happen when the average police response times between 5 and 10 minutes [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus107.pdf]. Assuming an AK-47 is makes for the best defense ever is absurd. A moderate caliber handgun (between 9mm and .45) is sufficient for protecting oneself between the 911 call and the police showing up.

On the subject of being realistic, using an AK-47 for home defense is just dumb. A 7.62x39 bullet has way too much penetration potential! You run the risk of shooting through both interior walls, some exterior walls, and into neighboring structures.

Re:It's incredible to me (0, Troll)

RoboRay (735839) | about a year ago | (#43994617)

You seem to be confused if you think atheists are depriving people of their rights. Religious people are the ones that try to make everyone else give up rights to comply with their delusions.

Fear and Ignorance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994345)

So it will be legal to build your own guns with metal machining tools, but if you do it with a 3D printer, it will be illegal. I'm sure all the people who want a gun but can't buy one are going to listen. This will just be one more charge after the fact, after someone commits another crime that is already illegal.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | about a year ago | (#43994369)

This is what I don't understand. Why do we need separate laws about 3D printed guns? Surely if you're not a licensed gunsmith you can't legally make a gun, whatever the particular tools you use to do it?

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43994431)

This is what I don't understand. Why do we need separate laws about 3D printed guns? Surely if you're not a licensed gunsmith you can't legally make a gun, whatever the particular tools you use to do it?

that's how it is in most of the western world.
however, usa is an exception and it's legal for anyone to make a gun(provided the gun isn't particularly advanced, but still). that's how there can be a place for this law, but it makes little sense in the overall context of new york being situated inside usa.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994445)

This is what I don't understand. Why do we need separate laws about 3D printed guns? Surely if you're not a licensed gunsmith you can't legally make a gun, whatever the particular tools you use to do it?

It is legal to make a firearm for personal use in the US. You don't have to be licensed.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994451)

But you can make one for your own use. This would stop that.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (0)

geogob (569250) | about a year ago | (#43994555)

By "for your own use", do you mean only shoot yourself with it?

Actually I know very well what you mean and what is meant it the federal provisions, but it's a pretty perverse implementation of gun restriction law when you think about it for a second.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1)

nschubach (922175) | about a year ago | (#43994601)

Guns are not solely created and bought to shoot people specifically. For my own use can be anything from shooting cans to hunting for food or animal population control.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (3, Insightful)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#43994797)

I think "for your own use" means the same thing that it means in relation to the other two categories of things that the ATF cares about. You can have and make alcohol [beer...not liquor], tobacco [products], and firearms [as long as they're not fully automatic machine guns], it's when you start selling them that oversight gets intrusive.

Gun restriction law is in-and-of-itself perverse (as are the other two categories above). Prohibition's success rate for gun manufacture is only high due to the barrier to learning the process. 3-D printing is getting so much attention because now people who are frightened of guns (instead of people) realize they could be produced without complete government oversight and accountability.

I'm not especially worried about it because the people I'm likely to get shot by will have guns whether there is 3-D printing or not. Banning 3-D printing just means they're more likely to have a reliable gun.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994457)

9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?

Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).

Source: https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1)

tippe (1136385) | about a year ago | (#43994613)

Is this actually true, or is it that you need to be a licensed gunsmith to *sell* a gun (but making one for yourself is totally legal)?

Honest question; I don't know anything about American gun laws...

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43994831)

Is this actually true, or is it that you need to be a licensed gunsmith to *sell* a gun (but making one for yourself is totally legal)?

Honest question; I don't know anything about American gun laws...

When trying to understand US laws, keep in mind that one of the founding principles of the US was that it was to be a collection of semi-sovereign states. As such, the states have great authority at shaping their own laws.

So to answer your question... it depends on which state you are in when you want to sell a firearm. Pennsylvania, IIRC, doesn't have any particular restriction on personal sales of firearms (I'm sure there are some, but I remember it being pretty free). New York State does, but it also depends on the type of firearm.

It can actually be a big problem for people because you can easily make a wrong turn in your car and what is perfectly legal and a non-issue in one state can be considered an extreme felony with mandatory multi-year minimum sentences.

IE: The Benjamin Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia. It's so damned easy to accidentally cross over into New Jersey where the gun laws are more draconian. Of course, the laws in Philly are pretty severe too, but you could be legal in Philly, and accidentally cross into NJ.

The Ben Franklin Bridge, for those that don't know, is very easy to accidentally cross as the roads leading to it are confusing and don't really have the standard 'Oh shoot, this road is taking me to the bridge let me quick take this exit' offramps. By the time you realize you are approaching the Ben Franklin Bridge, it's already too late and you are on your way to Camden, NJ.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year ago | (#43995023)

At least when you get to Camden, there's many fewer cops than there used to be due to the layoffs.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43994897)

In the USA, anyone can make a gun, perfectly legal gun. You can make them all you want, you just can't sell them. THAT takes a firearm license. But when everyone can make a gun, the idea of gun registration (for the purposes of selling them) becomes useless. Guess what, gun laws are going to change, and they are going to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment, without the formality of doing so, because people are scared of things that make loud noises.

The fact that more people died at the hands of hammers and clubs than rifles, proves it isn't about killing people. It is about killing people with things that make loud noises that scare people. Make people afraid, tell them only the Government can protect them, and the people become pawns in the struggle for power among the elite. Who can scare the people the most. "Republicans want to kill grandma and eat kittens" or "Brown People are invading from Mexico". It doesn't matter what it is.

Everything is a parody when you start looking through things with clear eyes.

Re:Fear and Ignorance (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about a year ago | (#43994969)

The loud noises thing is so true. On my way to work way back in the day there was a corner that I could take either in 2nd or in 3rd. (This is relevant, I promise). If I took the corner in second, I'd be doing maybe 40-45km/h and making a lot of noise. People would stare disapprovingly and anyone walking across the road anywhere in the area would start running.

If I took the corner in third, I'd make it round at about 50km/h with maybe a tiny bit of tyre noise but no loud revving. Even though I was going faster and would have potentially caused more damage to any pedestrians I hit, zero fucks were given because I wasn't making as loud a noise.

SO very dumb (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43994347)

They should wish that the only gun people could have is the 3d printed gun known as the liberator. 1 shot .380.... I believe that is what the government is ultimatley trying to whittle our gun rights down to. 1 shot useless calibers

Re:SO very dumb (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#43994399)

Totally, they should be pushing for these useless hunks of plastic!

Re:SO very dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994407)

So are you upset at the fact that joe blow can't spend 15 grand on a 3d printer and start handing out guns willy nilly to anyone with 10$? Because that's where this is headed. Firstly, the 3d printed guns aren't 100% 3d printed, you can't use plastic for all of it. Second, they work once or twice before they break down. Third, they have a high chance of exploding in your hand. Lastly, have you seen one? I'd be more scared of someone holding a lego gun. Actually, it kinda looks like it's made of lego.

Right now, you have to follow a process to purchase a gun, sure you might hate it, but it's there, it's law. Allowing anyone with access to the design, meaning anyone with internet access, to print 3d guns, unregulated, is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Don't take my word for it, wait for the first random robbery or murder to use a liberator, you and I both know it's coming, manufactured or not, to end all of this.

Personally, I think if you have the right to purchase a gun, you have the right to make one.... for yourself. That's where it's impossible to regulate.

Re:SO very dumb (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43994737)

Wrong.. the liberator is 100% plastic.. That's why it's only good for 1 shot then it needs to cool. The ABS plastic can withstand like 200C before it starts to melt, but the barrel can get there pretty quick.. Also you only need to spend about 500$ for a 3d printer if you put it together. A plug and play you can get for 800 (solidoodle)... I would love it if robbers only used liberators.. Instead they will use easily obtainable 9mm, .40, or .45 cal taurus that they can get for 3-400 if that. With 10 round magazines.. Instead of the near useless .380 caliber 1 shot liberator lol

Re:SO very dumb (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year ago | (#43994773)

Firstly, the 3d printed guns aren't 100% 3d printed, you can't use plastic for all of it. Second, they work once or twice before they break down. Third, they have a high chance of exploding in your hand. Lastly, have you seen one? I'd be more scared of someone holding a lego gun. Actually, it kinda looks like it's made of lego.

Your information is old.

Since the first guy published his "printed gun" improvements have been made. Interchangeable multi-shot barrels and plastic springs for magazines have both been done.

Not reliable yet by any means, but things are progressing very fast.

An innovative designer could make a receiver for a pipe-shotgun with quick change barrels and as long as the pipe was long enough it would be legal.

The days of "control" over this stuff have slipped away.

Re:SO very dumb (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43994721)

Don't dismiss a .380 as a useless caliber. At close range it will penetrate, you may not have stopping power but then again nicking the femoral artery would take one how long to bleed out?

As concealable as a .380 is you could get very close to your intended target.

Re:SO very dumb (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43994867)

Yeah i should reword to say as a 1shot gun it becomes useless. I do like the .380 for concealed weapons, but not as a primary defense caliber.

NRA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994357)

While the NRA spends quite a bit and does a good job protecting gun rights, its important to remember that they are financed by large arms manufacturers. They probably wont lobby as hard for your ability to print your own guns.

Re:NRA (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43994529)

While the NRA spends quite a bit and does a good job protecting gun rights, its important to remember that they are financed by large arms manufacturers. They probably wont lobby as hard for your ability to print your own guns.

Actually, that will be an interesting thing to watch. Which way will the NRA fall on this (and similar) issues.

Re:NRA (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#43994691)

I think we can take a pretty good educated guess on this as it doesn't make THEM money... They'll be for the banning. And they'll put it down to them being reasonable and willing to compromise on things.

Re:NRA (4, Informative)

gregulator (756993) | about a year ago | (#43994625)

According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear [policymic.com]

Re:NRA (4, Informative)

SPQR_Julian (967179) | about a year ago | (#43994693)

There really needs to be a "-1, factually incorrect" option.

The NRA is completely on board with legal homemade guns, and membership dues and advertisements are the majority of their income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances_and_organizational_structure

Good grief (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994391)

Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, said in an email interview, “Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.” Wilson was referring to Title 1, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and Title 2, the National Firearms Act.

OK, anyone who reads or watches the news would realize that politicians overreact because most of the electorate falls for grandstanding and over reaction. If a legislator proceeded with common sense, caution, and reasoning, he would never get elected. And this was bound to happen and rest assured, other states WILL follow suit. There is going to be a lot of money spent fighting this in the courts and there WILL eventually be a law against 3D printers. I have no doubt.

Now we have Mr. Wilson. Mr Wilson goes and prints a 3D gun and blabs it all over the internet - yes, I'm well aware that there would have been someone else who would have done so; after all, we live i a society of attention whores and narcissists. But never the less, he was the first and he gets the blame.

tl;dr: WTF did he expect?!

Unless that was his game all along.

Re:Good grief (1)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43994585)

Yes, I think Mr. Wilson could have calculated the likely outcomes better than he apparently did. On the one hand, the environment around Newtown, the Boston bombings, an endless stream of kids-shooting-siblings on the news, etc etc creates a favorable moment in legislative (sp?) history for getting gun control enacted. Everyone on that side of the fence wants to see some, any, tangible results. On the other hand, the NRA really is funded largely by gun manufacturers - these guys have no manifest interest in seeing everyone printing guns at home, and surely don't want to give ground on what they consider to be the more substantive issues (background checks, national registry, large-capacity magazines, bans on certain types of weapons.) Who was always going to be the first one thrown off the island here?

State? (4, Funny)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#43994393)

"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.

Re:State? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994547)

Posted by timothy

That explains it.

Re:State? (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#43994729)

Yes, given that Timothy is a Slashdot editor, and all Slashdot editors rarely bother to check submitters' words for sanity, that does explain it.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994591)

http://www.snotr.com/video/675/A_blonde_and_a_3rd_grade_geography_question

Please allow me to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994709)

Fuck NYC.
Fuck Bloomberg.
Fuck Cuomo.
Fuck Schumer.
Fuck Gillibrand.
and Fuck Rangel and all the other crooked mf'ers who are holding the rest of New York State political hostage.

Re:State? (2)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43994727)

"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.

I did have an american ask me is Wales was a city in London a few years ago (and yes, he was dead serious...)

Printing Guns (2)

FunkyLich (2533348) | about a year ago | (#43994417)

Well well. So there is this piece of legislation that will make it illegal to 3d-print a gun.

So now I wonder, what is and whether it will be altered or 'revised', the definition of: Gun. One needs not a gun to harm someone else. Illegalising the 3d-printing of Guns as we now think of guns, will only add one more law to the ocean of Laws and will only marginally solve the problem it is setting out to solve.

But... *COMPUTERS*! (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43994419)

I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.

The only thing I can't legally do? Sell them.

So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown. But New York gets its knickers in a knot over someone printing out a single-shot low-pressure piece of crap?

Dear politicians - We all know you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43994497)

Actually you can sell them once you no longer want them. You can't make them with the intent to sell, but you can use sale as a method to dispose of them when you are done with them.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

gregulator (756993) | about a year ago | (#43994637)

This; at least under federal and most state/local laws.

In some places (california, others), you could legally manufacturer a modern sporting rifle, but you couldn't sell it.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43994537)

I think it's for the people of New York City to decide how New York City wastes its tax dollars. I think Bloomberg is a pompous ass, but that's not really any of my business because I live in a different state.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43994677)

I think it's for the people of New York City to decide how New York City wastes its tax dollars.

In general, sure. When it comes to doing things explicitly banned by the US constitution, not so much, because it means you and I, in other states, will have to pay to process this BS through the federal court system.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43994569)

This will be the interesting point... Will it be legal to sell/share the control files that you feed into a 3d printer to print a gun?

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43994719)

But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?

Don't worry, they do. It's just that your choice of priority depends on your final goal.

If your goal is a reduction in gun violence, you might prioritize efforts to reduce poverty, unemployment, and parents lacking time to be parents.

If your goal is to ban firearms, you prioritize the efforts which are achievable in small bite-sized portions.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43995121)

If I hadn't already posted here, you'd get my mod points. +5 "completely gets it".

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (0)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#43994839)

I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.

That may be the federal law. A city or state can legislate restrictions on the manufacture and ownership of firearms.

You're not allowed to carry handguns in New York City without a permit. A lot of gun owners get arrested in New York City every year because they don't understand that.

I feel sorry for them because they didn't understand the law and usually got arrested when they disclosed their guns, but if you're going to carry a weapon around with you that can kill people, deliberately or (more often) accidentally, it's your responsibility to know the law.

Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43995085)

So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't, certainly not without about ten years of practice and $100K worth of equipment. Of course after all that time and practice you'd probably be considerably wiser and realise that there's no point.

New York City is not its own state (yet) (4, Informative)

imadork (226897) | about a year ago | (#43994423)

Please keep in mind that New York City is not it's own state. And the rest of the state is pretty steamed about the recent gun legislation that the Governor jammed through the state legislature. Some upstate sheriffs have even gone so far as to say they will not enforce that legislation, which is a pretty big step for law enforcement to come out and state in public. Gun rights are a twitchy subject here right now, I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.

Re:New York City is not its own state (yet) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994685)

I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671 [state.ny.us] , only two: David DiPietro [state.ny.us] of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck [state.ny.us] of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

Do you tourism a favour... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994707)

I'm not in the states but when people use the terms "gun" and "twitchy" in the same sentence, I'm likely not to visit anytime soon.

Weapon companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994465)

They have kids to feed.... cant let their customers print their own guns...

The whole reason 3D printed guns were invented, (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year ago | (#43994541)

was to circumvent crap like this. 2nd amendment protection, even when it's being attacked aggressively.

Stupid fuckers (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43994545)

OK, I'll print 100s of guns then. Fuck you New York Assholes!

What is the difference between the two? (3, Insightful)

aglider (2435074) | about a year ago | (#43994563)

I mean, to me a 3d printed gun is like any weapon you can build at home or in the garage.
Is a weapon that doesn't follow the "normal" market chain.
So they also should regulate, say, hand made knives, archery and even deadly traps.
It looks to me just like a govt response to a buzzword. Just to let people know "we are watching over you".

Federal law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994565)

... Already stipulates an average citizen can make a weapon for personal use. Read it yourself.
Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44

Re:Federal law... (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#43994855)

That's federal law. State and city law can be more restrictive.

Doesn't matter (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#43994575)

The point of 3D printed guns is to be able to ignore such legislation if need be. In general, such laws could be anticipated, but are known to be mostly irrelevant.

To put this into another perspective - its currently illegal to download pirated music and movies off the internet. Not proposed legislation, not "we're thinking about it" - it's already 100% against the law. How effective is that?

Another example: its current illegal in nearly every state to possess, grow, or smoke marijuana - yet a significant chunk of the population ends up trying it at some point because when you get right down to it, the shit grows out of the fucking dirt.

3D printed guns are much the same. They're there not just to make it easy to make a gun, but to make laws against it ineffective. The government and politicians can stamp their feet, pound their gavel, and pass whatever laws they way - but if We The People still want a gun, we'll have them - and there's nothing they can do about it.

Re:Doesn't matter (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43994851)

Thing Is, I can make a metal handgun faster than anyone can 3d print one. and that is using common hand tools. No the barrel will not be rifled, but that does not matter if you are within a few yards of your target. IF you have advanced tools like a drill press with a XY table, you can actually machine parts to make a semi auto from blocks of metal.

Wow, "crack down" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994597)

As if 3D printing were this incredible menace. Wobbly fragile parts so unreliable that they fired it with a string pulling the trigger. The lawmakers bought into the hype, just like most Slashdotters.

Re:Wow, "crack down" (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43995015)

It's possible that 3D printers will get better.

One of which is reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994641)

I say it's perfectly reasonable to require a gunsmithing license to manufacture firearms. ANY firearm. It's the sort of thing that isn't really done as a hobby, and if it is, it's' the sort of hobby that wouldn't be heavily impacted by having to acquire some sort of license.

Re:One of which is reasonable (1)

spacepimp (664856) | about a year ago | (#43994827)

Which problem does this license solve? We can bear arms. We cannot sell them without a license. You don't need a license to do what is not illegal.

Batshit Crazy (1)

thewils (463314) | about a year ago | (#43994657)

Don't forget - the batshit crazy folks have a right to print guns too...because...well they have a right to protect themselves just like the rest, don't they?

Oh, like this will work (1)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#43994775)

This will work.

Why? Because the sort of person who would shoot school children or rob a convenience store will of course obey these laws.

NYC ran by morons... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43994795)

Instead of dealing with the problem they just do the ban everything method. Perfect for the no IQ crowd like the leaders of NYC..

Why don't they talk to large city leaders elsewhere about what works? They are simply doing what Chicago does, and Chicago is a complete failure.

New Project! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994853)

Okay, so we get everyone that has a 3d printer to print out one gun (or 5) and we will box them all up and donate them to the people of NYC.

the end game here is (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year ago | (#43994941)

i can see the headline on Slashdot in 2018ish

"First all 3d printed gun test fired 10k rounds"

Yesterday Crunktech successfully fired the Liberator V6 with 10k rounds. This was made possible by use of the new Super Goop with microwave activated hardening..."

but these PoliCritters need to understand the following

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?