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!

3D-Printed Gun Bought and Displayed By London Art Museum

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the print-and-shoot dept.

Technology 133

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The world's first 3D-printed gun known as the Liberator has been treated as a technological marvel and a terrorist threat. Now it's officially become a work of art. On Sunday, London's Victoria & Albert museum of art and design announced that it's buying two of the original Liberator printed guns from their creator, the libertarian hacker non-profit known as Defense Distributed, and will display them during its Design Festival. Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed's founder, calls the museum's acquisition of the gun a victory for his group: 'It will now be this curated, permanent cultural provocation.'"

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

Art (2)

damnal (801923) | about a year ago | (#44862279)

Art is always in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Art (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862319)

Boy, I sure hope I'm never in the eye of a beholder [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Art (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862379)

When I was your age, we called those cachodemons.

newer (2)

nten (709128) | about a year ago | (#44862417)

If you are referencing doom, d&d actually came first (1975).

Re:newer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862515)

FAIL. 1974

MOD PARENT DOWN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862917)

Dearest user, need you correct EVERYONE on slashdot over every little pedantic matter? It's clear that he (?) was being facetious.

Re:Art (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44863221)

I'm allergic to bee stings you insensitive clod!

Re:Art (3, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44864911)

It is a historical and precedent setting object, not to mention an interesting design. That definitely makes it of value to a Museum of Art & Design. Heck, just about any museum except those that are really specialized.

Art??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862315)

Tell me how a glorified zip gun is considered art?

Re:Art??? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44862373)

Tell me how a glorified zip gun is considered art?

it's media art. not art of engineering. not art of revolution. but art of playing the media frenzy.

you know what non-profit means in this context? that all the money goes for the guy..

Re:Art??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862375)

The V&A is a museum of art and design, so hopefully the gun is considered the latter, not the former.

Why? (4, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44862329)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

Good 3D printers are not cheaper or more accessible than used CNCs, and the turns produced are far more dangerous than those produced from small blocks of aluminum and steel.

Granted, producing the guns may be cheaper (AR parts kit, plus homemade receiver, plus upper would probably cost 700$), but the difference in quality and utility is quite vast.

Re:Why? (2)

Mr.Zuka (166632) | about a year ago | (#44862377)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
Think of it like the script kiddie of gun making.

Re:Why? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44862479)

It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
Think of it like the script kiddie of gun making.

printing the gun on sub 8000$ 3d printer has you dealing with getting it to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage.. much more than it takes skill to buy a shotgun shell, a spring, a nail, a bit of wood and a pipe and to assemble them. and that gun would be re-usable.

in fact, I don't think he's serious about home guns. if he was then he would be using pipes and home depot parts where it makes sense and printing some other parts. that way you could build a stern clone for sub 100$. now his gun is a media gimmick.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863313)

It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill. Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.

Really? When I was 16 (over 20 years ago) I put together a small zip gun just out of curiosity. Right now I have no idea how to make 3D printed gun, except in theory. Take your average Joe off the streets and put them into front of computer with a 3D printer and let's see if they can make a plastic zip gun with it.

Re:Why? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44864123)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.

After spending an hour or so this past weekend watching people's 3D printer videos online, I think you're underestimating the challenge of successful, usable prints.

Sure, it's much easier than learning to mill barrels on a machine lathe, but not quite as trivial as you make it out to be.

Re:Why? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#44862381)

And now that the panic is over, you can get one brand new for your $700 price point....

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862393)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

People are idiots and have no knowledge of things outside their little spheres of interest and no desire to learn.

Ergo, "HOLY SHIT YOU CAN PRINT GUNS OH MY GOD WHAT'S THAT FALLING IT IS THE SKY ZOMGZOMGZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111eleven"

Re:Why? (2)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#44862431)

Don't forget a for-profit 24-7 news cycle has to maximize profit not truth. Some things are incredibly worse when their first motive is profit.

Re:Why? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44863237)

People are idiots and have no knowledge of things outside their little spheres of interest and no desire to learn. - AC, 2013

Thanks for my new signature.

It's for scumbags only. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862477)

....the difference in quality and utility is quite vast.

When you're a scumbag out to hurt someone, you just need to stick the gun to their face and pull the trigger.

These aren't snipers or even some infantry guy who needs accuracy and reliability.

Stick the gun to their head and *BOOM* be done with it.

This gun has no purpose other than to prove a point and the only use for it is to scare people - "Oh my God! Someone can print a PLASTIC gun in their basement and bring through TSA and take over an airplane!"

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862619)

I'm not aware of any CNCs that are within the price point of a home user.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862763)

http://www.taigtools.com/cmill.html

Taig makes a decent little product that can do all but one of the operations on an ar-15 receiver.

If you want to vastly over complicate a homemade weapon, I'm sure you can find a design that can be milled.

Reposting an AC to get this low-cost CNC seen (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44864193)

http://www.taigtools.com/cmill.html [taigtools.com]

Taig makes a decent little product that can do all but one of the operations on an ar-15 receiver.

If you want to vastly over complicate a homemade weapon, I'm sure you can find a design that can be milled.

Re:Why? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44862789)

I'm not aware of any CNCs that are within the price point of a home user.

Congratulations, you just triggered a rant!

Hack a Day put out an opinion piece saying that upcoming patent expiry wasn't going to put 3d printers in hobbyists' garages. They were wrong, sadly, stupidly, wrong. Here's why: They based their argument on the idea that nobody would spend $10,000 for a FDM machine for their home. But that's just stupid, stupid bullshit. People spend way more than that on their hobbies. I know quite a few people with a lot more than $10,000 into their hobbies. There's people out there with more than 10k into a fucking train set! Don't even get started on something like racing.

By the same token, you're completely off-based on the price of CNC. You can buy a classic 2.5D mill, a real stout one, for about $1500 with a fair amount of tooling. It will probably come with a three phase motor, so you'll need to spend a little more on a phase converter; as a bonus that can also be a speed controller so you don't have to dick around with belts all the time. For another $1500 you can convert it to full CNC operation. So for way less than the price of a mediocre race car, you can have CNC in your garage.

What a shock, an ignorant anonymous coward

Re:Why? (2)

AlecC (512609) | about a year ago | (#44863139)

Can confirm this. My ex-boss makes a $500 tuning accessory for a $24,000 miniature but working steam locomotive. The guy who builds the locomotives is building them in batches of twenty, OK, the locomotive is the main cost of your miniature railway, but you are probably looking at $50,000 for a working setup, for something with no practical use at all. $10,000 for something that makes useful stuff? No problem. I could see the upper end of the steam enthusiasts getting a CNC machine, if it were easy enough to use (not trivial) just for fixing and enhancing their locomotives.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864851)

Sorry your social circle is so impoverished.

Re:Why? (1)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | about a year ago | (#44862711)

Try making an AK from raw materials. Now try printing a firearm from raw materials. Tell me which is easier.

Re:Why? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44862983)

This gun is not an AK. Not even close. It's probably the equivalent of a zip gun. Those are quite easy to make, and don't require that you have an expensive printer as a starting point.

Re:Why? (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year ago | (#44862717)

This is just the result of media-pandering as usual. People have been making guns ever since they existed, and the NSA has been spying on us ever since the proliferation of the telephone. It's just that big media loves grassroots-like stories to keep the Y-gen kids interested in everything.

Stereolithography stimulates the minds of pseudo-intellectuals who dream of one day saving up $1,000 to buy a cheap one, and go on to imagine somehow changing the world with it. Things like this fuel the hype, and get more kids watching the news that comes down from the mainstream, and then onto social media sites like reddit.

If it gets a few more kids interested in engineering every year, I suppose it's harmless and they could be pushing worse things down our throats.

As for the rest of us, we can simply scroll down past these, and pay attention to the real things that matter in this topic like discoveries in new material technology.

Re:Why? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44862805)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

Because "makers" are hip and cool and go to Burning Man. And a guy with CAD plans and a used CNC machine is called a "machinist" and that's not nearly as cool.

My father was a machinist, a tool-and-die maker for a good part of his life after WWII. But "makers" believe they have invented something new, so making something from a 3D printer that doesn't work is much cooler than making something that works.

Plus, there is the frisson that comes from doing stuff that involves guns, because guns give some people hard-ons. Put together fruity "makers" and guns in the same story and you get internet gold.

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year ago | (#44862865)

It's not about the shitty design process. It's about sending a message: democratized defense against all threats, external and internal.

Re:Why? (1)

poity (465672) | about a year ago | (#44862965)

It's probably more about culture than about the object itself. I would guess because it was central to the huge media coverage, it has come represents the moment when the public consciousness expanded to the (preexisting) accessibility of homemade firearms. It marked a "holy shit I didn't realize that" moment for the general population.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862967)

Not what the point was. The point revolves more aroudn securing other American's freedoms. Watch a few of this guys videos, and listen to his ideologies. Not to shabby. And you may turn down his ideas but one thing is for sure. Gun violence is a problem in the states. Taking the guns away might actually help for a little while, but it is not the problem. I just think its odd that no one wants to address the growing racial, cultural, monetary divide, plus the drug problems. People want the ability to take eachothers lives for all the wrong reasons. And there are right reasons.......

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863973)

Taking the guns away might actually help for a little while

It has not helped any gun-free zone, because gun-free zones, be they cities, parks, or schools, are not magically gun-free.

Re:Why? (2)

return 42 (459012) | about a year ago | (#44862993)

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

Good point. I see two reasons for "the authorities" to be more worried about 3D guns. First is (I would guess) CNC is fairly mature and stable, while 3D printing is undergoing rapid development, becoming cheaper, more versatile, more accessible. Second is that a CNC machine is something of a niche application, not interesting to many people, whereas 3D printing can make a much wider variety of things and is therefore potentially of interest to more people. Thus, 3D printed firearms are potentially accessible to many more people, and, with future technology, easier to produce.

Re:Why? (1)

return 42 (459012) | about a year ago | (#44863507)

Another thought: I would guess that CNC tools tend to be big and heavy and take up a lot of space in the basement of one's house. A 3D printer can fit on a table in a small apartment, and you only need the one printer to print a firearm.

Re:Why? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about a year ago | (#44863717)

One major reason - it's made out of low grade plastic. It's thus not going to be picked up my metal detectors.

Re:Why? (1)

return 42 (459012) | about a year ago | (#44863997)

Maybe. Remember the ammo is metallic. Also, the nitrates in the powder can be detected by dogs and possibly machines.

Also, while metal detectors don't detect plastic, T-waves and ultrasound might well.

Re:Why? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44863853)

Because the hope of a lot of people is to have a high quality 3D printer in every home some day. If they become standard appliances it's quite a bit different from a CnC machine.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864139)

Because of potential. 3D printers are still improving drastically and the prices keep coming down. The eventual end goal would be a decently precise desktop machine being available in your local office supplies/computer store in the near future. CNC machines haven't done this. And they've had decades. Is it possible to do this? I don't know. But if it was easy enough to do I'm sure someone would have done it years ago. Plastic is just ultimately and easier material to work worth and has better chances for a machine that will operate like your printer today and spit out whatever you downloaded off the internet.

Re:Why? (2)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44865099)

Currently it's much easier and cheaper to build a zipgun/saturdaynight special/junkgun with parts from the hardware store and regular shop tools than it is to make 3D printed gun. And that's not even mentioning that the non-printed one will probably be more accurate and durable. What the fuss is really about is idiots panicking and trying to make a scene.
If someone wants to bring up the supposed skill gap, it's pretty much an illusion. Anyone that has the most basic tool use skills could make a zip gun of one form or another. Heck, my mom could make one if she wanted to. As to knowledge of guns, it's not exactly an industrial secret, and besides, at it's most basic, it's a tube with a round inserted in one end with the bullet facing the other, and held steady while a firing pin forcefully smacks the middle of the round, and some kind of grip so it's easy to hold and not get burned. For that matter, the basic principles of guns along with basic descriptive drawings or photos of it's workings are easily attainable on the internet or any dead tree format library. Heck, even the Japanese could get that info, and I'm sure you've heard how anti-gun their government is.

I merely see the 3d printed guns as a representative of the fantastic and wide ranging possibilities for 3d printing in the future. Someday they may be a near virtual Aladdins Lamp. (Combine an ability to use many different materials simultaneously with a recycling/material bank restocking ability, and the sky's the limit.)

Why not print their own? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862343)

It's not like they're making a photocopy of the Mona Lisa here.

So he admits it. (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44862353)

'It will now be this curated, permanent cultural provocation.'"

So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll. I liked it better when they stuck to the Internet and didn't fuck things up for us IRL. Things are a lot harder to ignore or fix there.

Re:So he admits it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862541)

I don't think it's ever been unclear as to exactly what the intent was. The thing about trolling is that it requires people to let themselves be trolled--and in that he succeeded wonderfully. In a sense it again put the brittle knee-jerkery of the political scene back into the limelight.

Make no mistake. The people throwing a hissy fit over this could just as well shrug and move on. As they should after they've examined the evidence and thought a bit about the consequences. They didn't even shrug, meaning that they wanted to throw a fit, and this was suitable material to get their knickers in a twist over.

In that sense this is much-needed pokery at the apparatus that likes to take freedoms away and had a field day with other people's freedoms after 9/11. And a lot more benign than what happened there, which, in a sense, was exactly ment as a huge IRL troll on a hated enemy. That enemy didn't manage to make themselves any less hated (or any more trustworthy, for that matter) in the intervening dozen years.

What was the price of freedom again? Oh yes, eternal vigilance. I think someone dozed off there, just for a little while.

See this as a wake-up call.

Re:So he admits it. (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44862819)

So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll.

Throughout history, artists have been described as "provocative". Many of these provocative works are now considered classics. One purpose of art is indeed to be provocative. Are you trolling, or just massively ignorant? I don't see a third option here

Re:So he admits it. (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44863137)

The third option is that I don't want legally-required DRM on 3D printers.

Re:So he admits it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863353)

That will most definitely happen, not from fear of weapons, but fear of people making replacement parts, plastic toys and other things that would cut into profit.

Re:So he admits it. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44863359)

The third option is that I don't want legally-required DRM on 3D printers.

Look, either you support people using 3D printers in totally legal ways or you don't. If you're not prepared to fight for other people's right to make what they want, then be prepared to be prohibited from making what you want eventually. Try the lessons of history, they're important.

Re:So he admits it. (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44863647)

I'd be fine if he was just 3D printing handguns. I might even want to help him out as a fun experiment. But that's not what he's doing, he's loudly provoking governments into taking action (which he might VERY mistakenly think would be deregulating firearms), stirring up a fight that doesn't need to be fought right now. Do I need to settle on either condoning this provocation or siding with authoritarians? And are you sure he's not working on the side of authoritarianism? He's not fighting for any rights we don't have, what he's doing would work perfectly as a protest for regulation of 3D printers, the only thing missing is a statement of such intent from him.

Re:So he admits it. (2)

Zimluura (2543412) | about a year ago | (#44864525)

I don't think that DRM on 3D Printers is, in any way, feasible.

The angle I think may be tried in the future: A massive mesh fingerprint database that has to be checked before a design can be printed. easy solutions: hack the driver to always return "no_match_in_database_ok_to_print" or gut 3D printer's brain and wrire an arduino to use its high precision linear actuators and chassis.

I really can't see that approach working ever. As long as there are computers with programming languages and DC motors you'll have 3d printing. I guess they could try to regulate all computer programming and electronics parts everywhere. so no one will ever be able to build a 3d printer.

Re:So he admits it. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44864847)

So you're saying that it can't be any worse than the current state of DRM ubiquity on TVs and gaming consoles? Well that's true but I don't think it's good...

Re:So he admits it. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44864171)

So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll.

Throughout history, artists have been described as "provocative". Many of these provocative works are now considered classics. One purpose of art is indeed to be provocative. Are you trolling, or just massively ignorant? I don't see a third option here

Kinda makes a guy wonder what people would have said about Da Vinci if they'd had internet in ancient Venice.

So take that, (3, Funny)

John.Banister (1291556) | about a year ago | (#44862365)

3D printed ploughshares!

Wrong Aproach (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44862387)

These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them, that is just useless, and stupid, and counter to any reason you would like them.

"3D printed guns, they make good wall hangers."

If you are interested in these 3D printed guns, then have a live demonstration or something. Show one being make, being fired, etc...

Re:Wrong Aproach (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44862453)

These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them

Of course you can. By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44862823)

By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.

Or, at least get some TSA goons at the exhibit to feel up grandma and a few toddlers so we know what we're standing for...

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44863097)

No that is completely different, that is a historic piece.
The whole point of the 3D printed gun is that you can make one in your office.
This gun is not historic or special, the technique is.

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44863533)

No that is completely different, that is a historic piece.

So is this. It's not in the same league as the Wright Flyer - I'd far rather see that - but I'd still find it interesting to see this particular gun.

This gun is not historic or special, the technique is.

And this is the first working gun to be made with this technique.

Re:Wrong Aproach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44865135)

Do european musuems not have guns on display? I really don't get why anyone would say you can't just display them...

They're now a part of history and culture, whether people want them to be or not. They aren't common -- but it may be historically relevant as 'the first'.

Old firearms and guns are pretty common in US museums.. (often de-milled or filled in). It's not like you're going to shatter the case and walk out the front door with an M60... or an old .700 miniball...

I've been to multiple civil war museums that have hundreds (?) of different styles of long rifles, whole sections on kentucky/texas differences...

Hell, I am near the 'national' nuclear museum. In addition to early ejection seats, aircraft you can walk in, they have: ICBMs, bombs, russian rockets... they're all de-milled, but you can see boosters, tanks, and even fissionables-missing warheads... they have one of the earliest artillery pieces that fired a nuke too... can't recall the name, but I have pictures at home...

One of the aircraft has ... what I think is the gauss gatling cannon on the front.... something with a rate of fire so massive it will actually reduce the airspeed sufficiently to stall the aircraft...

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

cgt (1976654) | about a year ago | (#44862681)

That's probably illegal in the UK.

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

raburton (1281780) | about a year ago | (#44862929)

That's probably illegal in the UK.

I assume to posses the original legally they'll have to have it deactivated too. Although that depends on if it's actually classed as a firearm in the first place, while it obviously should be I don't know if the law actually sees a 3d printed bit of plastic as a firearm just because it could fire a bullet (after all lots of things could do).

Re:Wrong Aproach (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44863113)

So they are actually just displaying a hunk of plastic in the general shape of a gun? Wow, I would totally take time to go see that.

Re:Wrong Aproach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864523)

This is clearly a prohibited weapon under Section 5 of the Firearms Act. The Museum will have to get the permission of the Secretary of State to own these, and will have to prevent them from being handled by anyone who doesn't hold a similar authorisation.

Not art (1, Troll)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44862399)

While I do feel firearms can be works of art, this plastic piece of crap is not art. A Kentucky rifle [blogspot.com] is art(the smooth lines, the metal plates); an antique engraved firearm [aaawt.com] is art(some of those old engravings are amazing); hell, even an AK-47 is in my opinion art, in a mechanical/engineering sense(it's simplicity of use, the beatings they can take and still operate). But a plastic gun that falls apart after a few shots? They might as well include a Nambu type 94 [world.guns.ru] in their exhibit. They can call it "How not to design firearms".

Re:Not art (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44862463)

It's not there to look pretty. It's there because it was the first of its kind. It's in the museum of art and design.

Re:Not art (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44862489)

It's in the museum of art and design.

And I'm saying it is not worthy of being there. Do they have Gyrojet there? It was the first of it's kind, and it was pretty crappy too. I'd rather them show display the AK-47 a guy made out of a shovel and a barrel blank. THAT takes some real ingenuity and design. This guy was just an attention whore.

It is about the printer not the gun. (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44862667)

I think you are missing the point. The point is not that high quality design of the gun – the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer. It is kind of like getting your dog to sing. You don’t listen to the dog for it’s amazing voice, you are amazed that it can do it at all.

Re:It is about the printer not the gun. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44862897)

I think you are missing the point. The point is not that high quality design of the gun – the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer. It is kind of like getting your dog to sing. You don’t listen to the dog for it’s amazing voice, you are amazed that it can do it at all.

To use your example, you wouldn't exhibit your singing dog by playing a recording of the song, you would show the dog actually singing. So if the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer, then display a 3D printer actually making something, rather than just the output of a 3D printer.

Re:It is about the printer not the gun. (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44862985)

In reality I think they chose the gun not because it represented the highest level of art of the printer but because it is controversial and thus will draw people.

To you point, in a more abstract view, I have a bias in museum for more solid, concert things – to anchor things to a point in time. The dog may have a bad day. Or the dog may be dead so all you get is a stuffed dog. So a recording is better. Would it be cool it see a 3D printer chugging away – Yes. But I would think that would be more of a science museum thing. But I think that is splitting hairs. The gun is a legitimate thing to display – a tangible thing to mark a point in history.

Re:It is about the printer not the gun. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#44864141)

Don't worry, if they're like any other museum, they'll have a few 3d printers around to print out plastic trinkets for a buck or two. Most will be pre-made, and you can select your model and watch the re-stock item get made (if you're patient enough).

Re:It is about the printer not the gun. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44864433)

But then perhaps they should be putting the printer on display, possibly in operation. Charge people to print out their own trinkets so the museum can generate some money. I'm sure there's thousands of other things you could print out that would be a much better example of "the high quality output of a 3D printer" than a 3d printed gun. You can't demonstrate the high quality of a printer, by showing a low quality product. It would be like demonstrating a high quality laser printer by displaying a 32x32 icon that's been scaled up to fill an entire page.

Re:Not art (2)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44862949)

The Imperial War Museum (also in London) has three Gyrojets in its collection: http://www.iwm.org.uk/search/global?query=gyrojet&x=0&y=0 [iwm.org.uk] .

But they don't seem to be interesting for their artistic design, which is what the V&A collects and exhibits.

Re:Not art (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44862525)

Oh, I'm so glad you're here to arbitrate what is and isn't art! All this time, I had to think of art as being subjective and open to interpretation from the observer, but this is so much easier!

Re:Not art (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#44862705)

Manufactured items aren't art. They are the products of design, and may be copies of an artwork. But they are not art.

Given that this is coming out of a printer, that can continue manufacturing the same item, with differences only being random mechanical errors, I'm going to say that it's not art.

Given that this is a museum of art and design, this does qualify. But not on the basis of it being art.

Re:Not art (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44862751)

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
      Andy Warhol and his factory
      Terry Redlin
      Ferraris

Re:Not art (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#44864927)

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
            Andy Warhol and his factory
            Terry Redlin
            Ferraris

The Mona Lisa is a work of art. The post cards they sell in the Louvre gift shop are reproductions of works of art, but not works of art in themselves. The whole limited edition print thing does not make a reproduction any more of a work of art.

Warhol's Factory had an output of both artworks and reproductions. Sounds like Terry Redlin too, but I don't know him (maybe I would if I was American.)

If by Ferraris, you mean the manufactured cars, they are not art works. If you mean an artist by the name Ferrari, then maybe.

All IMO.

Re:Not art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864655)

Well, i think it depends in how do you classificate art. If you think art is just a representation of the beautiful, or something it's useful and ellegant with dellicate lines of the craftsmanship, then this gun is not art. Buuuuuuuut, this is a simplistic form in how to perceive art (XIX century) and its outdated. There's a guy named Walter Benjamin of the first half of XX century, that have an essay named "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" that is kinda easy to read to you begin to understand what is art in our age.
There's a significant difference in our concepts of art, but to shorten this discussion please understand that those guns are a form of art not only for their simple designs, but for their significance per se. It's not the possibility of this object to be made in front of the person with the 3d printer, but the discussion and understanding that this new possibility of production opens. Art is not only the visual.

Entirely Missing the Point (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862455)

Bought a 3d printed gun? The entire point was for it to be printable! If anything, don't display the gun, display a 3D printer in a case continually printing guns, with the finished guns falling into a hopper to be ground down to pellets to be extruded into filament to be fed back into the printer. Now that's art!

Re:Entirely Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864521)

Sounds like an anti-gun wet dream.

Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (3, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year ago | (#44862509)

Am I the only one who thinks that these idiots are creating 3D printed guns solely to provoke TPTB into regulating 3D printers? ---- I.e. future 3D printer models you purchase will send any 3D object you print to a remote server, where trained specialists check whether you are - possibly - printing "gun parts" without legal authorization. ------ I think that the crappy 3D guns these people are trying to create give all of 3D printing a bad name. And I'm pretty sure that the big corporations can't wait for 3D printers to be crippled with draconian regulations. Thus one can forget about a future where one doesn't buy a product the conventional way, but rather uses one's home 3D printer to print it out. I hope the 3D guns people stop before they ruin the 3D printed future for the rest of humanity. My 2 Cents...

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862543)

The Constitution does not permit TPTB to regulate 3D printers. Manufacturing your own firearm is also perfectly legal and it is a criminal violation of basic civil rights for the government to try to stop it.

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862849)

Oh, hey, look at that! Shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this morning. Three or four victims in critical condition, including a DC cop!

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (1)

krovisser (1056294) | about a year ago | (#44863447)

Oh hey, look at that! DC has the strictest gun laws in the country, not to mention it was on military grounds. Matter of fact, places with high crime always seem to have the strictest gun laws, to little effect. And it's always strictest on "assault weapons", which are used in less than 1% of gun homicides, but 99% of news reports. It's almost like poverty is a better indicator of gun crime rather than gun laws.

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year ago | (#44864425)

Oh, hey, look at that! Shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this morning. Three or four victims in critical condition, including a DC cop!

A gun free building, inside a gun free zone, inside a gun free city. Ironically enough, the tard quoted above can only think "if only we could make a gun free state or a gun free nation this wouldn't happen!"

More of a failing strategy won't create a succeeding strategy.

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (1)

TheSync (5291) | about a year ago | (#44864593)

inside a gun free city

DC is actually a bit less "gun free" now. There is no longer a complete ban on legally owned handguns.

Following the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. Firearms must be registered with the police, owners undergo a NCIC background check and submit to fingerprinting. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare at what address it will be kept. There is a 10 day waiting period from purchase of firearm to possession, and a 30 day waiting period between purchases of firearms.

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44862925)

Am I the only one who thinks that these idiots are creating 3D printed guns solely to provoke TPTB into regulating 3D printers?

Are there regulations on plumbing materials? Hop your ass down to the hardwares store. When all the shit there that can make better weapons faster and cheaper is provoking folks into regulating them, then perhaps I'll consider 3D printer output the same.

I think you're really missing the damn point here bub. One key thing this shows is not that everything must be regulated or it'll be turned into weapons, but that the 2nd amendment should be "The Right to Bear Technology", because that's what arms are. Think about cryptography. Now think about munitions, Now back to Cryptography, now think about toaster ovens, get a rolling pin in your head for a good long minute, and now to automobiles... That last one is the most dangerous... Second only to poor diet.

I can't believe they're building meals in factories and pumping them full of preservatives! This is giving Food a bad name! No one will be able to cook without government oversight now! My Zero Bitcoins...

Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44863103)

I think you're really missing the damn point here bub. One key thing this shows is not that everything must be regulated or it'll be turned into weapons, but that the 2nd amendment should be "The Right to Bear Technology", because that's what arms are. Think about cryptography. Now think about munitions, Now back to Cryptography

Remember, certain types of software are actually considered munitions for the purpose of export. I wonder if that line of reasoning has ever been tested in court: "the government defines this software as a weapon, so the 2nd Amendment applies". That could turn into an interesting legal argument.

Emergency! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44862537)

Quick! Close down the V&A in London!

We have received reports that someone has seen a firearm there. Armed police are in attendance. Please move rapidly towards the exits and leave the building.

I think it belongs in an art museum as a (0)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year ago | (#44862601)

cynical comment on America's infantile fascination with things that go "bang!". I hope they display it along side binky's and other such icons of preintellectual babyishness.

Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863757)

Just for your information, you sound like a fucking moron.

Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863763)

Don't worry, your armed countrymen will continue to protect you and your loved ones with such examples of "preintellectual babyishness" despite your complete lack of respect for their means of safeguarding your well-being. It's in your best interest, too, because you are undoubtedly completely reliant on their protection and defenseless without them.

Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44863969)

I feel that this collection of golden guns should be in an art collection https://medium.com/war-is-boring/51e8ba9ea975 [medium.com] as it also concentrated upon men bad men with a fascination with things that go "bang" but YMMV.

Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44864233)

Where do I find the exhibit of people who have an infantile obsession with what Americans do?

Oops, already viewing it apparently.

A: Because it breaks the flow of a message (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#44864417)

Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly annoying?

should have just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863027)

Should have just printed their own.

yuo fAil it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863379)

Yet a zip gun is so easy to make (2)

Andover Chick (1859494) | about a year ago | (#44863437)

Why is the 3D gun such a big deal? Granted it is a milestone in 3D printing that a gun can be made. But really what else? Why is this anymore of a terrorist threat than a zip gun? Zip guns are often made in prisons by convicts and, in previous generations, by ghetto kids. All one needs is a strong tube, an improvised firing pin and an actuator (such as a rubber band) to drive the pin into the percussion cap.

mo3 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44863509)

outs7Rips [goat.cx]

Why stop at handguns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44864471)

Since John Coster-Mullen has made the fruits of his 'Little Boy' research available, full details of the first atomic bomb are available, to the level of engineering drawings.

With a decent sized 3-d printer it ought to be possible to create a complete gun-type nuclear weapon. Then you only need the Uranium-235....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?