×

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!

In a Security Test, 3-D Printed Gun Smuggled Into Israeli Parliament

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the up-close-and-personal dept.

Security 280

GenieGenieGenie writes "After all the talk of printed guns and the problems they pose to traditional methods of perimeter security, we get a live demo courtesy of some rather brave journalists from Israel's Channel 10, who took the plastic weapon known as the Liberator past security into the Israeli parliament, and held it within meters of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I say brave because had they been caught pulling this stunt, which involved taking their toy out of the bag while sitting in the audience of a speech by the prime minister, they would have faced some real steel. Haaretz has the video (sorry, Hebrew only at the moment) [Google-translated version of the article -- Ed.] where you can follow the breach (from ~6:30) and see them pass the metal detector and the moment when the gun comes out. The movie also shows some testing of the gun in a police-supervised weapons range. Parliament security officials said that 'this is a new phenomenon and they are checking the subject to give it a professional solution as quickly as possible.' I hope this doesn't mean we will now officially face an era of ever more intruding security checks at entrances to events like this." Would-be Liberator printers, take note: the testing shows the barrel violently separating from the rest of the gun.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

of course... (4, Interesting)

houbou (1097327) | about 10 months ago | (#44183929)

this will get compounded when these 3-D printed weapons are actually made up of parts which on their own have a look and feel and a different functionality. And imagine when they are able to get these 3-D weapons to be made of alternate, yet compatible parts. Things will just get a little more..... interesting..

Re:of course... (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#44183989)

Which is part of a broader idea... whose idea was it to use metal detectors as gun detectors?

Sure it made sense a while back, the same way that assuming computers would remain analog, that the locomotive was the most reliable way to travel long distances, or investing in Zeppelin futures was a sure fire win.

Time & technology change... and detection methods must change with them.

Re:of course... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184157)

Like scanners that show your nude body underneath? Like irrationally banning mundane items and liquids? By intrusive stare-downs and groping molestation? Or did you forget that actually killing somebody with one of those things requires some metal like, say, bullets and shell casings? Or do they make Carbon-fiber bullets and shell casings now? How about having dogs that smell propellant?

Sure is bootlicker in here. Though taking out some of all of the Israeli parliament would actually reduce terrorism in the world. Oy vey - dis iz a holocaust!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:of course... (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#44184283)

Or you could have a chat with EL AL who despite being the target of multiple hijacking attempts... has only been successfully hijacked once. An airline that once on board and inflight... you can expect to be handed a steak knife to go with your dinner because they know you not to be a threat.

I'll tell you the dirty little secret to improving security... profiling.

*gasp*!

Far too many items can be legitimately purchased off a shelf, built or crafted into a potential weapon than can be detected. The goal is not to prevent them from being carried on an aircraft (or to be in the proximity of a high ranking government official)... but instead to identify the person who is a threat and is likely to use such an instrument (or worse) against a target.

Re:of course... (4, Interesting)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 10 months ago | (#44184377)

Well, not just profiling. Having competent, highly trained (and properly trained) security personnel. Sure, Israel is a small country, with a fraction of the air travelers and air ports that the US has. But with the amount the US is spending on the TSA, I'm pretty sure they could do a good job funding an Israeli style system.

Re:of course... (3, Insightful)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about 10 months ago | (#44184643)

An Israeli style system will NEVER be implemented in the US because it runs totally contrary to the politically-correct postmodernist identity politics narrative that drives our current political monologue (no, not dialogue).

Suggesting it will be met with screeches of "RACISM!", the person suggesting it will forever be chased and shamed from the limelight, and we will continue staffing our airport security with fat, sticky-fingered illiterate highschool dropouts that barely speak understandable english and use their union to protect their do-nothing jobs while extorting more and more taxpayer money from the very people subjected to them.

Re:of course... (4, Interesting)

rikkards (98006) | about 10 months ago | (#44184725)

Let alone the fact that all international travel enters Israel through 1 (ONE!) airport. The Israeli method doesn't scale well. What works for them is impossible in a larger country with a multitude of entry vectors.

Re:of course... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184769)

It scales fine. Two airports? Two scanning stations. There is no scaling issue.

Re:of course... (3, Informative)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about 10 months ago | (#44184881)

It scales fine. Two airports? Two scanning stations. There is no scaling issue.

Explain to me how, precisely, you propose to expand the threat scope from Israel's to the United States', implement it at every controlled airport in the US, screen and train enough agents to support it at all those locations, admin it nationwide, and mollify the huge identity politics movement in the US that will scream RACISM at the very notion of *not* consciously ignoring every single quantifiable attribute of the individuals you are evaluating as threats.

Re:of course... (5, Interesting)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 10 months ago | (#44184825)

I'm Israeli, so there may be some bias there, but the last time I traveled to Israel, the screening and check were done not on the Israeli side, but rather then US side (LAX, specifically). If you think about it, that sort of makes sense -- you don't figure out if someone's out to hijack your airplane after they deplane :)

(In my case, it was pretty cool -- I came up to the ticket counter, and a rather attractive blonde woman started chatting me up. We were about 3-4 minutes into the conversation before I realized i was being profiled. She wasn't wearing a uniform or anything).

Re:of course... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185103)

deplane :)

The word you're looking for is 'depart'. Otherwise an insightful post.

Re:of course... (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#44184809)

It's funny to contrast Israel to identity politics, when identity politics is literally the foundation of the country. It's an oppressed minority that seceded and set up its own country where they dominate.

Re:of course... (5, Insightful)

dirk (87083) | about 10 months ago | (#44184675)

While they do have profiling, it is not the profiling people in the US think of. It is not religious or racial profiling. It is proper profiling based on real factors that make professional, trained profilers think you need extra scrutiny. They don't mark muslims for extra scrutiny because they are muslims. They mark people who act nervous and like they have something to hide for extra scrutiny.

There is nothing wrong with proper profiling. It is a very useful tool. Unfortunately in the US, profiling means having a poorly trained, poorly paid TSA agent check anyone who is brown. To proper profile you need intelligent, well trained profilers, which the US won't pay for.

Re:of course... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184803)

The US spends $8 per passenger flight. The Israeli's spend $80. So, all you need to do is find 50-60 billion dollars a year to get the US up to Israel's standard. Or you could be a realist, and determine that it's not worth it.

Re:of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184933)

An airline that once on board and inflight... you can expect to be handed a steak knife to go with your dinner because they know you not to be a threat.

I, for one, welcome our future sushi-offering inflight meal overlords.

Re:of course... (5, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | about 10 months ago | (#44184395)

whose idea was it to use metal detectors as gun detectors? Time & technology change... and detection methods must change with them.

If non-metallic guns were truly viable, they would have been used 20 years ago to sneak past metal detectors and kill judges and politicians and airplane pilots. Plastic manufacturing has been around for a long time, the only thing 3D printers do is reduce the cost. There are well-funded spy agencies and a few individuals who would have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single gun. And yet none has materialized: [1] [thefirearmblog.com] [2] [straightdope.com] [3] [urbandictionary.com]

Re:of course... (4, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#44184867)

If non-metallic guns were truly viable... blah blah blah

Or you could say "if nukes were a truly viable way for small of non-state actors... clearly they would have been used decade ago"
both are equally false. As time, technology, and availability of information increase... the ease of constructing such weapon increases and we will see their eventual use.

No doubt you thought the same about malware and viruses a few years back.

Re:of course... (2)

thoth (7907) | about 10 months ago | (#44185063)

The reason expensive undetectable guns haven't materialized is lack of demand. Spy agencies aren't going to pay for a million dollar weapon since if their agent is caught, having an exotic expensive weapon is a giant neon glowing sign that says "state sponsored assassin". Besides, 20 years ago the suicide bomber wasn't a thing. Now it is, folks that seriously want to kill judges, politicians, and airplane pilots take everyone else down with them.

Re:of course... (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#44185181)

Well said, plus, state actors have other tools at their disposal. Why go with a one off and rather expensive gun... when you can poison someone with polonium 210 [wikipedia.org] , or with ricen and an umbrella [cnn.com] , or just a group of assassins [wikipedia.org] .

Government actors like to get away with what they did and with minimal traces... individuals are not always as caring... which brings us to another aspect, to quote Without Fail by Lee Child::

"John Malkovich was looking to take out the President of the United States, and Edward Fox was looking to take out the President of France. Two competent assassins, working solo. But there was a fundamental difference between them. John Malkovich knew all along he wasn't going to survive the mission. He knew he'd die a second after the President. But Edward Fox aimed to get away with it."

A government intelligence agency isn't worried about making a single shot weapon when they have better tools at their disposal... while some nut who wants to take someone down and themselves along with them... it's a good enough weapon to take a shot with.

The issue is and always will be... not detecting the weapon, but detecting the person who wishes to use it. Finding the weapon only removes one item from the intended assassins potential arsenal.

Re:of course... (1)

anagama (611277) | about 10 months ago | (#44184495)

Until the casing, bullet, and primer can be made from non-metalic substances, getting the gun past detectors might be easy but getting the ammo in to make use of it substantially harder. Right now, they'd be better off 3d printing knives because an empty gun is just a way to get yourself killed.

Re:of course... (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 10 months ago | (#44184585)

They aren't "gun detectors", they're metal detectors. Guns, being made of metal, set them off. But so will my glasses, wrist watch, zippers, even the rivets on my Levi's(TM). As far as I've seen, the bullets are still made of metal, and thus detectable by the current generation of security machines.

Note: the article doesn't say they had any bullets for that gun on them. As such, they were walking around with slightly more plastic on them, and there's nothing illegal or even questionable about that.

Re:of course... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185075)

Am I just dense or is there not an array of non-ferric metals that would easily get by a metal detector , coudl be manufectored by CNC machines and casts, and operate much more effectively and reliably than plastic?

1988 called, they want their hysteria back (3, Informative)

cliffjumper222 (229876) | about 10 months ago | (#44183957)

Plastic guns? Been there, banned those... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hr4177

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#44184027)

That law only applies to the US... or at least those who obey US law.

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (4, Interesting)

InvalidError (771317) | about 10 months ago | (#44184203)

Considering the near-impossibility of managing copyright infringement, it is extremely doubtful that governments will be any more successful in preventing the proliferation of "illegal 3D patterns" online and preventing people from printing them on their personal 3D printers.

I smell billions of dollars getting wasted on attempting to prevent the inevitable in our future just like billions have been wasted on copyrights to preserve failing business models.

They need to focus more on addressing the root causes.

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (1)

westlake (615356) | about 10 months ago | (#44184637)

Considering the near-impossibility of managing copyright infringement, it is extremely doubtful that governments will be any more successful in preventing the proliferation of "illegal 3D patterns" online and preventing people from printing them on their personal 3D printers.

But governments can control the composition, sale and distribution of the raw materials needed to print a practical plastic weapon.

It might be possible to chemically tag these materials, as explosives are tagged.

Fire your gun and it will leave trace evidence behind.

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 10 months ago | (#44185111)

it is extremely doubtful that governments will be any more successful in preventing the proliferation of "illegal 3D patterns" online and preventing people from printing them on their personal 3D printers.

It's worth noting that one of the first applications of Copyright law outside of books was to the proliferation of illegal 2D patterns. Weave patterns used in cloth textiles were determined to be protected by copyright (technically they still are, but most common patterns are in the public domain now). And the fact that you can "program" an automated loom to produce a certain pattern laid the framework for the application of Copyright law to computer software. These, not mechanical calculators, were the first programmable mechanical computers [wikipedia.org] .

So yeah, you and I know it's a practical impossibility to try to stop the proliferation. But that won't stop people from trying.

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 10 months ago | (#44185115)

They need to focus more on addressing the root causes.

Note, you used the plural "causes". One of those causes is pure crazy - paranoia, schizophrenia, or even temporary insanity like many drugs including bath salts can instill.

There is no cure for crazy, at least not yet. And there will never be a cure for the type of temporary insanity that suddenly wells up into a blind rage like in the movie "Falling Down".

Until you reach every person on the planet who is at risk, you can't cover all of the root causes. And that requires a huge surveillance system - the kind that only exists in the show about the guy with the big computer jacked into all of the city's surveillance systems.

Focusing more will just mean money spent in a different direction.

Do you even know what you are asking for? All it takes is one rogue block of people to decide, taliban style, that they want to make a statement, and there goes your airplane. You are asking for world peace - a total solution to every angry person's reason for disagreeing with any other person in a violent manner. It would be nice, but that's not going to happen. Root causes is too vague.

Re:1988 called, they want their hysteria back (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 10 months ago | (#44184413)

And of course, like drugs, murder and copyright circumvention, the fact that it's banned means it longer happens. Thus, security officers don't need to take it into consideration when securing an area.

Right?

all these fine freedom loving people (0, Offtopic)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about 10 months ago | (#44183969)

making weapons like this which will have the end result being a far bigger encroach on our freedoms are amazing, carry on being douches and winding up the PTB (powers that be/pointy haired bastards) so the rest of us suffer for your amusement, you winners

Re:all these fine freedom loving people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184267)

Do you say the same thing of software/media pirates? Ramp up in restrictive DRM must be their fault

Re:all these fine freedom loving people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184817)

It is their fault.

Re:all these fine freedom loving people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184947)

Right, because those innocent publishers didn't choose to implement abusive DRM at all. Pirates literally held guns to their heads and ordered them to do it on pain of death. Or you're a moron. One of the two.

Re:all these fine freedom loving people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184545)

And those women who dressed too sexy deserved to get raped too, right?

QOTD (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#44183981)

I hope this doesn't mean we will now officially face an era of ever more intruding security checks at entrances to events like this.

Too late. Bend over, Citizen. We need to search you for any remaining decency you may be hiding. If you don't, you're a filthy anti-american terrorist. Your freedom is very important to us... which is why we're taking it away.

The only thing that has changed.... (4, Insightful)

MasseKid (1294554) | about 10 months ago | (#44183987)

Is the availability of 3D printing. The plastics needed to make single use firearms exist to make them much stronger than the "junk" used in 3D printers. Furthermore, a plastic bottle of 5 lbs of gun powder doesn't set off a metal detector either. You don't even need a 3D printer to make that.

The truth of the matter is if you are able to get within a few feet of someone, you don't need a 3D printer or any other fancy machines to make a weapon to kill said person.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (4, Interesting)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 10 months ago | (#44184059)

a plastic bottle of 5 lbs of gun powder doesn't set off a metal detector either.

Neither does a ceramic canister of high explosives.(which would be far more destructive than a plastic gunpowder device) Which is why the TSA looks at your naked body at the airport. Either way, the privacy and decency of sane and innocent individuals will be shredded and reduced to sawdust moistened with the tears of our founding fathers.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184331)

If only they'd let me walk around the airport stark naked, they wouldn't have to go into all this trouble.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (2)

nextekcarl (1402899) | about 10 months ago | (#44184631)

Then the psych wards would be filled with the aftermath of your passing, so it really is a catch-22.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184097)

I can kill a man 5 different ways using just my pinky.

Detect that!

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (1)

anagama (611277) | about 10 months ago | (#44184571)

How odd, just last night I was reading John Kiriakou's recent open letter in which he outlines how the Lieutenant prison boss tried to instigate a fight between him and another prisoner (*)? See page 4-5.

I told the CO that I could kill the guy with my thumb. He's about 5'4" and 125 pounds compared to my 6'1" and 250 pounds.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/705038/john-kiriakou-letter-from-loretto-1.pdf [amazonaws.com]

(*) The prison Lieutenant Told John that some Iraqi Kurd from Buffalo, who is basically in prison because he wouldn't testify against his parishioners, had been ordered to kill him. John later found out that the Lieut. told this same Kurd that John had been ordered to kill _him_. The idea being to get a fight going and lock them both up in solitary forever.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (2)

rts008 (812749) | about 10 months ago | (#44185049)

Leave your penis out of this discussion, please...we are not impressed. ;-)

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 10 months ago | (#44184441)

The difference is the means of manufacture. Manufacturing guns used to mean specialist equipment, specialist suppliers. They could be tracked, their activities monitored, and authorities could be sure they were only manufacturing legal (ie: detectable) weapons. The easy accessibility of 3D printing means that every basement in the world is now a potential (albeit, crappy) gunsmithy. Decentralization of manufacture means that tracking and monitoring no longer cut it to keep tabs on production.

The analogous situation is the centralized printing press, versus the decentralized internet in the field of copyright.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 10 months ago | (#44184917)

Really? Cause I can build a zip gun (which is what we're talking about) with off the shelf parts from Home Depot.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 10 months ago | (#44185189)

The term "zip gun" isn't particularly well-defined - it usually just means an improvised gun, put together with whatever parts are around. 3D printed guns don't really meet that definition. Besides, 3D printing is in its infancy. Yeah, the Liberator, is a one-shot gun just as likely to take out the shooter's fingers as it is the target, but it's also the very first iteration of these things. People aren't reacting to the capability of 3D-printed guns now, they're trying to anticipate the impact of 3D printed guns in 20 years time when they're far more widespread and capable.

Re:The only thing that has changed.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184627)

Yes but 3D printing hype.

Doing it the hard way (4, Interesting)

AJWM (19027) | about 10 months ago | (#44184007)

A 79-cent plastic water pistol filled with cyanide* is even more lethal, and just as easy to get past security.

Sure, the assassin will likely die from the cyanide too, but what are the odds of him surviving long with a one-shot gun anyway?

*(and sealed to prevent premature leakage; substitute other poison of your choice)

bullet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184013)

Don't they also need a bullet? Or are there plastic bullets?

Re:bullet? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 10 months ago | (#44184189)

Actually yes, there are plastic bullets, and plastic catridge cases (though I've never seen the two used in conjunction). Not sure that they used one here, but its perfectly possible.

Re:bullet? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44184361)

plastic bullets are non-lethal ammo (some cases of children hit in the head during riots in Ireland and dying though)

steel and dense metal bullets are the way to go for firearms, plastic is just silly and dangerous to shooter anyway.

Re:bullet? (2)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 10 months ago | (#44184459)

The plastic bullet/cased 762 I mention in the other reply can easily kill - not out to hundreds of yards like a metal bullet in the same chambering, but plenty far out. A small rod approximately .3 inches in diameter, weighing 4 or 5 grams, with a pointed front end moving at mach 2 or so is not something I would want to have pointed at me.

Re:bullet? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 10 months ago | (#44184423)

German training ammo in 762x51 (aka 762 NATO aka 308 Winchester) has both plastic (mostly... the base is metal) case and bullet. A special bolt and bolt carrier was used in the G3 (HK91) to fire it as training ammo.

Interestingly enough, the Israelis produced a brass cased *wooden* bullet in the same caliber for training purposes, using war captured German Mausers.

I don't get the point. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184103)

This gun is crap. It's worse than most other non-metallic or low density weapons, not to mention weapons of opportunity on other sides of security check points. So, shit, it's bad for criminal use, and worthless otherwise.

I don't understand what the agenda of the 3D printed gun crowd is. If I wanted to make my own gun I would, but it's easier to just buy one.

Going with "because I can", what the F would you bring it to a place like that to prove?

Re:I don't get the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184595)

These were journalists, not the "3D printed gun crowd". So they were likely just looking for a story that gets people all panicked and hysterical over nothing.

Surprised that didn't happen in the USA, with the all the propaganda from the government with an agenda to disarm the public.

Re:I don't get the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184979)

The average person, given all the tools and parts, can't fabricate and assemble a better weapon. The printed guns are craftable by an average person with no skills.

It's the sudden availability of crafters that breaks the previous firearm security concepts, not the abilities of the gun itself.

Cultural sensitivity? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#44184131)

Isn't the middle east more of a 'bomb violence' neighborhood than a 'gun violence' one? It seems like there isn't much point in smuggling in the world's shittiest pistol when widely available techniques for bringing in enough explosives to spatter the audience far and wide are available...

Re:Cultural sensitivity? (1)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | about 10 months ago | (#44184209)

Guns, especially guns of this sort, are easier to conceal, work at a distance and are lighter than the 5-10kg of C4 you would need to haul in past the guards in order to harm the speaker from where they were comfortably sitting. And the bomb scenario carries with it the price of not being able to view your accomplishment because the brain you use in order to perform said observation will be spattered across the ceiling.

Re:Cultural sensitivity? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#44184359)

Guns, especially guns of this sort, are easier to conceal, work at a distance and are lighter than the 5-10kg of C4 you would need to haul in past the guards in order to harm the speaker from where they were comfortably sitting. And the bomb scenario carries with it the price of not being able to view your accomplishment because the brain you use in order to perform said observation will be spattered across the ceiling.

I strongly suspect a potential assassin in the Israel parliament would not have a long life expectancy no matter what technique was used.

Re:Cultural sensitivity? (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 10 months ago | (#44184863)

Depends on ethniticity, I suspect. Remember, the last time Israel lost a Prime Minister (equivalent to US President, sort of) was relatively recently -- in the mid-90's. The assassin shot the PM in the middle of a crowd. He survived. He was arrested. He was tried. He's in jail now.

hype? (1)

fazey (2806709) | about 10 months ago | (#44184145)

What is all the hype with saying LOOK ITS MADE OF PLASTIC!!! I SMUGGLED IT IN!!! No kidding... its made of something they don't detect... I hope people who sit there and do this get executed. All you are doing is pushing the envelope for them to regulate 3d printers. Thank you for your contributions.

Do people feel threatened by 3d printers? (3, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 10 months ago | (#44184219)

I don't see why 3d printed guns are such a big deal. It isn't like making a gun is difficult. People in prisons(limited materials) have made zip guns before. To me, it sounds like there's a group of people who feel threatened by 3d printers. They're probably manufacturing folk doing everything in their power to keep printers from catching on. I mean why else would people be trying to do so much anti PR against 3d printers? It is no great feat to make a gun without a 3d printer.

Re:Do people feel threatened by 3d printers? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 10 months ago | (#44184405)

it sounds like there's a group of people who feel threatened

You could've finished the sentence there.

Re:Do people feel threatened by 3d printers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184931)

Well, to be more accurate, there is a group of people who feel threatened, and another group that feel like provoking the first group for no apparent reason.

Re:Do people feel threatened by 3d printers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184607)

I think I would feel safer in front of the gun rather than holding it.

Re:Do people feel threatened by 3d printers? (0)

artor3 (1344997) | about 10 months ago | (#44184713)

Crazy people (i.e. the sort of people who commit random murders) aren't all that likely to machine their own gun. But if you make it as easy as a few key strokes on a PC, they're a lot more likely to do that.

3D printers, like many technologies, make it easier to kill other people. We've adapted to this sort of change before, and we'll do it again, but it will mean losing some more freedoms. It sucks, but that's just how it is. The laws of physics don't give a shit about our civilization or our freedoms. We have to constantly reshape our society to survive factors beyond our control. Unless you've got some plan that will make it so human beings stop wanting to kill each other, that means coming up with new types of security to deal with new threats.

What's the point? (3, Insightful)

verifine (685231) | about 10 months ago | (#44184231)

The whole point about weapons is intent. It's never so convenient as portrayed by government, to be the simple presence of a weapon. Who is to say that the intent of person with the weapon is other than to preserve the life of the prime minister, the king, the president? Who gets to say that simply because a weapon is present that the worst possible scenario is the only possible one?

To the AC that asked about the 'bullet,' PLEASE, you've been misled. Maybe even consistently. The bullet is the part that comes out of the barrel at high velocity. What you (perhaps) meant to say is "Don't they also need ammunition?" It's a 'round of ammunition' or it's a 'cartridge.' Don't be misled by media morons and ask about 'bullets.' I've visited many gun stores where you can buy bullets. They're quite necessary if you're going to reload ammo. One store in Rapid City SD was particularly awesome. They had lots of 750 gr. .50 cal bullets–in a barrel. They were expensive, but then if you shoot .50 BMG, it's an expensive hobby. I still wish I'd bought a few, just as souvenirs.

Re:What's the point? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 10 months ago | (#44184807)

While you are technically correct, in colloquial usage bullet and ammo are interchangeable for the same thing.

Re:What's the point? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185011)

Walk into a gun store. Say "I'd like a box of 100 bullets for my .22." He'll hand you a box of 100 cartridges of Long Rifle. Words change meaning. Bullet means cartridge, clip means magazine. Give it up, you've lost.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185133)

There is such a think as caseless ammunition. But the bullet is still metal.

Oh noes....!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184307)

They took a plastic gun with NO BULLETS through a metal detector! OMG!!!!!111!!!111!1!1! Wolverines!111!!!!!11!1

I'm going to a pull a stunt where I take a super soaker through security and get on Slashdot!

Easy fix (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#44184315)

Here is an easy fix: remove parliaments.They are an unnecessary slow down for fighting terrorism anyway.

um, ammunition? (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#44184335)

So granted, they got a piece of plastic in the shape of a gun through security. The article says "a plastic pistol shooting live ammunition" but doesn't say whether any ammunition was actually present. Why is this important? Because the ammunition contains metal, (and propellant. Surely they're testing for chemical agents) and I'd be interested in whether they could get *that* through security. I suspect not.

Overall, I can see where this could cause a furor, but it'd be just as easy, for instance, to get an all plastic/rubber crossbow into the chamber, with the added advantage that an arrow can defeat Kevlar soft armor. (An arrow tip is just a bit of metal, which could be disguised as a variety of innocuous things.) There's always a way, given enough determination, which is why experienced security personnel are on the lookout even in a supposedly secured location.

Re:um, ammunition? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 10 months ago | (#44184813)

You could make ammunition without metal, and some propellants are easily detectable with the right casing materials.
Of course this will significantly affect efficiency and failure rate.

Ban people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184471)

You cannot stop someone willing to loose their life to take yours.

3D printed guns don't have to look like guns (5, Interesting)

Arakageeta (671142) | about 10 months ago | (#44184473)

It strikes me that a 3D printed gun doesn't need to actually look like a gun at all. Indeed, a 3D printed gun could use colors/markings and form of existing toy guns (a nerf gun that fires real bullets!), or perhaps it could look like a toy dinosaur that actually shoots bullets from its head. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but it never occurred to me during all these discussions about 3D printed guns. Something like this puts security/police/secret service officers facing people armed "toys" in a terrible position.

Re:3D printed guns don't have to look like guns (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 10 months ago | (#44184855)

All that's really needed is a barrel and something to struck the primer. You can use a simple pipe as a gun.

Re:3D printed guns don't have to look like guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185145)

I had a 3" long transluscent water gun taken from me once. Guns are not allowed on planes. Period. An empty water gun that looks anything like a gun, even if a 3" version of a rifle, in bright orange and see-through.

Re:3D printed guns don't have to look like guns (1)

lgftsa (617184) | about 10 months ago | (#44185155)

The head would probably be a better grip, so the exit would naturally be the ... other end.

You say "brave..." (1)

westlake (615356) | about 10 months ago | (#44184567)

I say "suicidal."

I would not chance a brain dead stunt like this to test the security of a high school in Nebraska.

I say brave because had they been caught pulling this stunt, which involved taking their toy out of the bag while sitting in the audience of a speech by the prime minister, they would have faced some real steel.

Re:You say "brave..." (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 10 months ago | (#44184887)

Not ... necessarily. Israeli security forces are an interesting thing.

A friend of my dad's tells a fun story. He went back to Israel in the mid 90's for a short visit (he's Israeli, but living in the US), and went for a little hike in the desert. While hiking, he found a spent anti-tank missile tube -- sort of like the launcher tube for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_antitank_missile [wikipedia.org] . He thought that was pretty cool, so he took it with him.

Some time later, he's travelling back to the US and takes his momento with him. He sits at the bus station in the airport with this thing next to him as he sees a police car driving by. Then he sees it come around again, and stop. Two officers come out and go "so ... what's that?" He showed them, they had a good chuckle, they drove away, the end.

A straw man war against 3D printers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44184753)

I hate the fact that 3D printers are getting pulled into this debate. I want a 3D printer. Not to make guns, but to make dollhouse parts for my daughter. At $500 or so for a very low end 3D printer, I figure that I could recoup the cost of it in a few days just making the bedroom set for the Chipmunk family. A plastic bed and and some plastic furniture worth about 10 cents sells for $30. Crank out a few of those and my daughter is happy.

Re:A straw man war against 3D printers (2)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about 10 months ago | (#44184923)

Then you need to stand up and be heard that you will not accept your government tightening its grip and abrogating your freedoms in a misguided attempt to stop a very vague threat that simply can't be legislated or regulated away.

Non-Issue (1)

ssufficool (1836898) | about 10 months ago | (#44184773)

It has been said before and I guess I will repeat it. Who is going to buy a $7,000 3D printer to print a single shot gun? Yes, it may get to the point where composite printing materials will accommodate multi-round fire arms, but we aren't there yet. Get a chunk of high impact plastic, drill a bore, insert round, nail and spring. You now have a low x-ray cross section zip gun. No 3D printer required. This is a non-issue.

Irrelevant (4, Insightful)

blindseer (891256) | about 10 months ago | (#44184895)

I may have missed something in the translation but I saw no mention of ammunition getting past security. Unless the ammunition was also made of plastic then a metal detector would still find a loaded firearm.

Try again with a loaded plastic gun, let us know how that works out for you.

Now, assume for a minute that even a loaded 3D printed gun can get past security. What do we do about it then? Perhaps we should arm the good guys inside the security perimeter so that they can shoot back should a bad guy with a gun get in.

Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one [wikipedia.org] , happened in a gun free zone. Problem is that when (not if) a murderer gets inside that gun free zone there is no one that can shoot back. When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.

Re:Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185167)

I thought the majority of "gun free zones" were created because of a previous local incident of gun violence in past history. Not that such zones invite it. This sounds more of a cowardly problem with political correctness in not addressing a neighborhood that fosters a culture of violence. If you see a drunken redneck waving a gun, or a saggy pants wearing nigger brandishing a Saturday night special, you better call backup or take out the mother fuckers before anyone else gets hurt!!

m?od dUown (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44185091)

BSD addicts, flame asS4ole to others of the above

Better to use subtractive for firearms (2)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 10 months ago | (#44185175)

I don't get this fascination with using computer controlled additive manufacturing to produce shitty firearms. If you want to use computer controlled manufacturing to produce firearms, better to get a CNC mill and use subtractive methods. Golmatic [emcomachinetools.co.uk] used to have a gallery of CNC manufactured firearms parts (out of steel, which actually works!). Looks like they're using trains [golmatic.net] now.
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...