The BBC's Rebecca Morelle saw the 3D-printed gun's first test in Austin, Texas
The controversial group which created the firearm, Defense Distributed, plans to make the blueprints available online.
The group has spent a year trying to create the firearm, which was successfully tested on Saturday at a firing range south of Austin, Texas.
Anti-gun campaigners have criticised the project.
Europe's law enforcement agency said it was monitoring developments.
Victoria Baines, from Europol's cybercrime centre, said that at present criminals were more likely to pursue traditional routes to obtain firearms.
She added, however: "But as time goes on and as this technology becomes more user friendly and more cost effective, it is possible that some of these risks will emerge."
Defense Distributed is headed by Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas.
Mr Wilson said: "I think a lot of people weren't expecting that this could be done."
The gun was assembled from separate printed components made from ABS plastic - only the firing pin was made from metal
3D printing has been hailed as the future of manufacturing.
The technology works by building up layer upon layer of material - typically plastic - to build complex solid objects.
The idea is that as the printers become cheaper, instead of buying goods from shops, consumers will instead be able to download designs and print out the items at home.
But as with all new technologies, there are risks as well as benefits.
Personal liberties
The gun was made on a 3D printer that cost $8,000 (£5,140) from the online auction site eBay.
It was assembled from separate printed components made from ABS plastic - only the firing pin was made from metal.
Mr Wilson, who describes himself as a crypto-anarchist, said his plans to make the design available were "about liberty".
He told the BBC: "There is a demand of guns - there just is. There are states all over the world that say you can't own firearms - and that's not true anymore.
"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."
Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun.
"But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there."
Gun control
To make the gun, Mr Wilson received a manufacturing and seller's licence from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Donna Sellers, from the ATF, told BBC News that the 3D-printed gun, as long as it was not a National Firearms Act weapon (an automatic gun, for example), was legal in the US.
She said: "[In the US] a person can manufacture a firearm for their own use. However, if they engage in the business of manufacture to sell a gun, they need a licence."
Amid America's ongoing gun debate in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, US congressman Steve Israel recently called for a ban on 3D guns under the Undetectable Firearms Act.
Groups looking to tighten US gun laws have also expressed concern.
Leah Gunn Barrett, from New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, has said: "These guns could fall into the hands of people who should not have guns - criminals, people who are seriously mentally ill, people who are convicted of domestic violence, even children."
3D printing technology has already been used by some criminal organisations to create card readers - "skimmers" - that are inserted into bank machines.
Many law enforcement agencies around the world now have people dedicated to monitoring cybercrime and emerging technologies such as 3D printers.
Ms Baines from Europol said: "What we know is that technology proceeds much more quickly than we expect it to. So by getting one step ahead of the technological developments, we hope and believe we will be able to get one step ahead of the criminals as well."
Chances that this will be banned long before it goes into production? It'll be leaked online even if it is though. The question is how viable they would be as an alternative to "zip" guns, and well, what're the chances that it'll explode in your face like a zip gun.
I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
The source has a video. I'm just thinking that even if they do make it affordable it'd be easier for criminals to either buy a real gun, that would be a lot more reliable, or make their own. I mean I don't see any other use for this thing other than for criminals to use where a regular gun wouldn't be easier to obtain.
Wyrmalla wrote: The source has a video. I'm just thinking that even if they do make it affordable it'd be easier for criminals to either buy a real gun, that would be a lot more reliable, or make their own. I mean I don't see any other use for this thing other than for criminals to use where a regular gun wouldn't be easier to obtain.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Absolutely. If you take the idea down to its basic level, then anything designed to propel any sort of ammunition would not have a problem firing any missile. Ok, it wont be as complicated as a bullet, but even a ball bearing fired at a certain velocity can do damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
When Thomas Jefferson and his friends sat down to draft the constitution, I wonder if they had guns rolling out from 3D printers in mind!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Yea. I'm sure in the future with new materials-not a problem. Right now though? I'm just going to go stand behind this brick wall..over there...
Are you asking can you print smokeless powder? No.
You could print a nice spear gun though. Get a spear gun, a bright red kilt, a nice rubber chicken hat, and an inflatable dingy and you're all set for your next shopping adventure.
I'll just say there are plenty of reasons real guns tend to have metal parts, and note that he brought two extra barrels with him, probably for a reason.
So according to the video its built with "layer upon layer of plastic" and uses a .22 rimfire round. At least the Europol agent was pretty blunt about criminals getting their hands on weapons "more easily offline".
For me the jury is out on this. Was a firearm made? Yes. However only in a relatively small caliber, with what appears less than stellar materials, with only one round fired, there was nothing indicating how or if the firearm could be reloaded, nothing to show its accuracy and it was pretty bulky.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So according to the video its built with "layer upon layer of plastic" and uses a .22 rimfire round. At least the Europol agent was pretty blunt about criminals getting their hands on weapons "more easily offline".
For me the jury is out on this. Was a firearm made? Yes. However only in a relatively small caliber, with what appears less than stellar materials, with only one round fired, there was nothing indicating how or if the firearm could be reloaded, nothing to show its accuracy and it was pretty bulky.
Well... the first computer was pretty bulky as well. This in itself might not prove to be much, but who knows where we'll be in 10 years.
This isn't the first working 3D printed gun, technically. These same guys had made several prototypes that would fire about a dozen rounds before breaking.
I'm guessing you need to to disassemble the things at least time part to reload them. The time required to do that though would probably make doing so moot however.
It's more proof of concept/proof of technology then anything. Which has kinda been defense distributed's whole purpose. "You can't ban this stuff even if you wanted to!"
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Seconded. Also:
Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Like meth, this is one of those destructive situations that will be not too difficult to stop if actions are taken before the wave starts, because once it starts, -like meth- it'll be impossible to stop.
And before anyone shouts "2nd amendment forever", please note that there cannot be anyone who honestly wants an unlimited supply of untraceable firearms flooding the streets. Seriously. By the very nature of it being untraceable, this will be the bad-guy-with-a-gun's choice of gun.
Frankenberry wrote:Not sure how you can ban this, given how the internet works. A great innovation if you ask me.
Help me understand why you think an innovation that will see a higher degree of piracy than any other medium ever, and is likely only going to be used against the public good in an uncontrolled manner is "great:". I'm seriously interested in hearing your explanation.
EDIT: I don't think it's too far of a stretch to be able to (moderately) easily create a version akin to a volcanic pistol, which can be reloaded quite quickly.
A very expensive piece of equipment making a shaky quality gun that breaks easily. Seems like its hardly much of a threat.
given that criminals have been, as Breotan said, able to make guns with other more easily obtainable materials I think this won't be much more than a novelty for a long time yet. Go ahead and ban them, it'll be just as useless at curbing gun violence as all the other pointless gun legislation.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Seconded. Also:
Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Like meth, this is one of those destructive situations that will be not too difficult to stop if actions are taken before the wave starts, because once it starts, -like meth- it'll be impossible to stop.
And before anyone shouts "2nd amendment forever", please note that there cannot be anyone who honestly wants an unlimited supply of untraceable firearms flooding the streets. Seriously. By the very nature of it being untraceable, this will be the bad-guy-with-a-gun's choice of gun.
EDIT: I don't think it's too far of a stretch to be able to (moderately) easily create a version akin to a volcanic pistol, which can be reloaded quite quickly.
I linked a video of it being test fired. their inital AR-15 lower receivers had stress cracking I think after either the 60th or 600th round. (second hand knowledge so no idea of validity, been a min. since buddy of mine was telling me about em)
I think the point the people behind defcad /defense distributed are making is that (woah wild speculation incoming!), by heavily regulating firearms, you're really not protecting society much, as easy as it is to produce your own armada of untraceable firearms quickly by the push of a button. The only difference between these and rubber band/broomstick zip guns that children can build is the ease of production by an individual with an existing 3d printer. By showing how easy it is for an individual to do this, it really paints the importance placed on "criminals not being able to legally get their hands on guns" ... They can just print them.
If he really wanted to make a single shot untraceable firearm, all he needs is a wood dowel, nail and rubber band. should we outlaw the distribution and design of those as well? Not trying to make a strawman argument, just not sure that "oh gak outlaw it!" might be the most sensible solution?
You can't un-invent the sword once its out there. You can't just "take it back"... the files are out there, people have saved them, backed them up, uploaded them to torrent sites, in foreign countries and on foreign servers I presume. I'm sure all the smart criminals have at least. If you doubt that they have I feel like you are not giving organized crime enough credit. I'm pretty positive they are up-to-snuff on new-found tools of assassination etc or one would think they would be..
I think the idea that "the wave" hasn't already started, is a bit naivete. No offense intended.
The real question in my mind is whether or not this is going to have any significant impact outside of the US in five years or so once the technology's been perfected and 3D printers are much, much more cheaply obtained. We know this is likely going to end up being used by criminals within the US once it becomes easier than acquiring a commercially manufactured gun illegally, but I wonder if other states have the criminal culture that will embrace sudden easy access to guns.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Seconded. Also:
Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Like meth, this is one of those destructive situations that will be not too difficult to stop if actions are taken before the wave starts, because once it starts, -like meth- it'll be impossible to stop.
And before anyone shouts "2nd amendment forever", please note that there cannot be anyone who honestly wants an unlimited supply of untraceable firearms flooding the streets. Seriously. By the very nature of it being untraceable, this will be the bad-guy-with-a-gun's choice of gun.
Frankenberry wrote:Not sure how you can ban this, given how the internet works. A great innovation if you ask me.
Help me understand why you think an innovation that will see a higher degree of piracy than any other medium ever, and is likely only going to be used against the public good in an uncontrolled manner is "great:". I'm seriously interested in hearing your explanation.
EDIT: I don't think it's too far of a stretch to be able to (moderately) easily create a version akin to a volcanic pistol, which can be reloaded quite quickly.
Its hard to kill a thought.
Zip guns (which is all this really is, but way more complicated then it needs to be) are easy to make. You just need a closed tube, a firing pin, and a spring, My Dad and his friends made them when they were teenagers.
Don't frak actually. Planes now have reinforced doors. This won't do anything to that.
This you don't worry about. A bomb in the luggage you worry about. A worker smuggling weapons or bombs to passengers you should worry about.
Frazzled wrote: Its hard to kill a thought.
Zip guns (which is all this really is, but way more complicated then it needs to be) are easy to make. You just need a closed tube, a firing pin, and a spring, My Dad and his friends made them when they were teenagers.
Don't frak actually. Planes now have reinforced doors. This won't do anything to that.
This you don't worry about. A bomb in the luggage you worry about. A worker smuggling weapons or bombs to passengers you should worry about.
I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, and I'm ambivalent about this development, but I don't think there's any question that the technology is going to be refined and sooner rather than later used for nefarious purposes.
I just don't think there's much we can do about it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'd like to see the video of this thing in action, as well as caliber and accuracy reports. Honestly? It sounds like an expensive way to fill yourself with shrapnel.
Seconded. Also:
Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Like meth, this is one of those destructive situations that will be not too difficult to stop if actions are taken before the wave starts, because once it starts, -like meth- it'll be impossible to stop.
And before anyone shouts "2nd amendment forever", please note that there cannot be anyone who honestly wants an unlimited supply of untraceable firearms flooding the streets. Seriously. By the very nature of it being untraceable, this will be the bad-guy-with-a-gun's choice of gun.
Frankenberry wrote:Not sure how you can ban this, given how the internet works. A great innovation if you ask me.
Help me understand why you think an innovation that will see a higher degree of piracy than any other medium ever, and is likely only going to be used against the public good in an uncontrolled manner is "great:". I'm seriously interested in hearing your explanation.
EDIT: I don't think it's too far of a stretch to be able to (moderately) easily create a version akin to a volcanic pistol, which can be reloaded quite quickly.
Its hard to kill a thought. Zip guns (which is all this really is, but way more complicated then it needs to be) are easy to make. You just need a closed tube, a firing pin, and a spring, My Dad and his friends made them when they were teenagers.
Don't frak actually. Planes now have reinforced doors. This won't do anything to that. This you don't worry about. A bomb in the luggage you worry about. A worker smuggling weapons or bombs to passengers you should worry about.
My dads 7 year old school mate murdered his older brother's bully (his older brother quit going to school for 3 weeks because was beaten up everyday, and was lying to folks about where he was going) in broad day light in a diner here in oklahoma in the 50's... Using a zip gun he made himself, as a 7 year old. That was the [i]1950's[i]
People are nuts if they think people are going to unlearn this stuff.
Frazzled wrote: Its hard to kill a thought.
Zip guns (which is all this really is, but way more complicated then it needs to be) are easy to make. You just need a closed tube, a firing pin, and a spring, My Dad and his friends made them when they were teenagers.
Don't frak actually. Planes now have reinforced doors. This won't do anything to that.
This you don't worry about. A bomb in the luggage you worry about. A worker smuggling weapons or bombs to passengers you should worry about.
I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, and I'm ambivalent about this development, but I don't think there's any question that the technology is going to be refined and sooner rather than later used for nefarious purposes.
I just don't think there's much we can do about it.
Agreed. As I said, its difficult to kill an idea. Unless you have a committee of course. That kills ideas faster than a neutron bomb...
Frazzled wrote: Its hard to kill a thought.
Zip guns (which is all this really is, but way more complicated then it needs to be) are easy to make. You just need a closed tube, a firing pin, and a spring, My Dad and his friends made them when they were teenagers.
Don't frak actually. Planes now have reinforced doors. This won't do anything to that.
This you don't worry about. A bomb in the luggage you worry about. A worker smuggling weapons or bombs to passengers you should worry about.
I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, and I'm ambivalent about this development, but I don't think there's any question that the technology is going to be refined and sooner rather than later used for nefarious purposes.
I just don't think there's much we can do about it.
"I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, and I'm ambivalent about this development, but I don't think there's any question that the technology is going to be refined and sooner rather than later used for nefarious purposes."
Just like legally obtainable more reliable fire arms? Nobody ever did anything nefarious with that technology...
or one of these...
Spoiler:
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. As I said, its difficult to kill an idea. Unless you have a committee of course. That kills ideas faster than a neutron bomb...
Its the equivalent of kryptonite for ideas.
I could see these type of guns in their current state as likely ending up decided by the Supreme Court to be a type of weapon that a well regulated militia does not use/need, in a similar manner to sawn-off shotguns (name of the case escapes me now)
skyfi wrote: Just like legally obtainable more reliable fire arms? Nobody ever did anything nefarious with that technology...
or one of these...
Spoiler:
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
Grey Templar wrote:I think he meant you can't regulate away evil people.
No, you can't.
azazel the cat wrote:Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
That might work, but I'm not sure it would ever go through due to the numerous valid industrial uses for 3D printing that will probably require similar plastics.
As far as I'm concerned, the right of the people to keep and bear 3D printers, shall not be infringed.
If anybody disagrees, I shall see you in the supreme court!
On a serious note, won't this infringe people's 3rd amendment rights? I mean if you have your 3D printer hooked up to your computer, and some Chinese hacker hacks in and starts printing off 3D warriors (I'm thinking 10 years down the line with advance cyborg technology) and those warriors take over your home in peacetime...well...
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
I for one am not suggesting that we un-learn something.
What are the impacts on this regulation on making other, non-firearm related parts? Such as making replacement parts for lawnmowers, cars etc. which would require a stronger material to bear the strains of its use.
Still, at least these things will be illegal over here, given that, you know, we actually have proper gun control laws.
Is internet piracy illegal over there?
This actually falls back to my earlier question: do you think British criminals are likely to arm up once they can get a cheap, untraceable firearm with zero risk for fifty pounds?
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
You just need a thicker shell. If we're talking .22 short the pressure is not that much.
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
I honestly have no idea what that is, it looks like a pot to me D:
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
I honestly have no idea what that is, it looks like a pod to me D:
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
I honestly have no idea what that is, it looks like a pod to me D:
It's a pressure cooker, not unlike the ones used in the recent Boston Bombings.
to be clear, i'm trying to illustrate how criminalizing something that potentially could be use for nefarious purposes is counter intuitive... Its the equivalent of criminalizing cars because someone uses one to murder somebody... or outlawing ropes because of lynching...
I honestly have no idea what that is, it looks like a pod to me D:
It's a pressure cooker, not unlike the ones used in the recent Boston Bombings.
Oh, ok. I've literary never seen one of these before now
Grey Templar wrote:I think he meant you can't regulate away evil people.
Pretty much this. If there's a will, there's a way. thus is life. Had we criminalized the ownership of pressure cookers, and the distribution of plans to fabricate pressure cookers, would the boston bombing still have happened? Or would it of just manifested itself in a different way? (ie. with fertilizer like mcveigh did, or any other # of possibilities..)... Again.. if there's a will there's a way... Can't just punish the whole lot of us on account of what-ifs, regarding every single possibility in existence. not enough time to write that many laws.
azazel the cat wrote:Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
Not saying an individual would un-learn but as a community/society... trying to control information about how to build a firearm seems like an attempt to get the population to largely forget how to do these things... (aside from those already established fire arm producers who can afford lobbyists)... You can't expect the information to just disappear from the internet.. It's already there. The box is open. If you criminalize it, now instead of law abiding people printing guns, only would-be assassins who need a plastic gun printed (at their destination, no need to even have a tricky break down to fool an x ray)... or other criminals will be utilizing and improving the technology, and I doubt thats what anyone thinks will fuel innovation.
I don't think that is a viable solution as others have stated. You can't hinder the legitimate industry on account of this sort of thing.. its counter-intuitive IMO.
Still, at least these things will be illegal over here, given that, you know, we actually have proper gun control laws.
Is internet piracy illegal over there?
This actually falls back to my earlier question: do you think British criminals are likely to arm up once they can get a cheap, untraceable firearm with zero risk for fifty pounds?
If they don't they are probably a pretty poor criminal. they sure as will when the "loot" is more than the cost required to produce a one-use-gun for the job to be discarded afterwards. Even if you print 3 of them. They aint going to cost 50 pounds either. I seriously doubt that. I think that is a very liberal estimate once these become more mainstream.
if your location has:
1. internet connection
2. somebody with money and will (not even a functioning economy, just an individual who can finance an operation)
than you are going to have to start dealing with the reality of these things to some degree at some point, maybe minutely.
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
You just need a thicker shell. If we're talking .22 short the pressure is not that much.
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
What exactly is the problem you feel we need a solution to? The article states that if you want to sell or transfer the guns you need a license. So, doing so without one would already be illegal. Making one for personal use is basically making a crap one shot toy, let folks do so if they want.
Why do some folks think MOAR GOVERNMENT!!! is the solution, even without a real problem to address?
Grey Templar wrote:I think he meant you can't regulate away evil people.
Pretty much this. If there's a will, there's a way. thus is life.
Then why do we have any laws?
"Your right to swing your fist, stops at my nose." "
legislate this when something hits someones nose. Not before. (legislate was a mistake on my part. what i meant was, let civil and criminal courts deal with the prosecution of individuals who are found to have violated anothers' natural rights by using one of these)..
Without a 3D printer, you can get better guns with much higher capacity clips and more stopping power at gun shows without a background check or registration.
skyfi wrote: .38 caliber is what their pistol is packing IIRC
If you go to the video in the OP and watch at 00.55 the range being used specifies ".22 RIMFIRE ONLY" in nice big red letters.
seems like it's interchangeable, my bad.
“Alright. One…two…”
"Before “three” arrives, a shot reverberates across the overcast central Texas landscape. A tall, sandy blond engineer named John has just pulled a twenty-foot length of yellow string tied to a trigger, which has successfully fired the world’s first entirely 3D-printed gun for the very first time, rocketing a .380 caliber bullet into a berm of dirt and prairie brush."
"The printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator’s barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator’s first field trial to an abrupt end." (from same article)
kronk wrote:Without a 3D printer, you can get better guns with much higher capacity clips and more stopping power at gun shows without a background check or registration.
This 3D gun is not the problem, nor will it be.
Yeah the magazines will be the biggest winner-winner-chicken-dinner I think.
They seem to have the most applications due to the stress loads involved. I honestly don't think the guns will be the big thing to watch out for. I think that they are just something that people have to take into consideration.. like a pocket knife.. well anyone COULD kill me with a pocketknife... but it's extremely unlikely as there are superior alternatives.
skyfi wrote: "The printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator’s barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator’s first field trial to an abrupt end." (from same article)
I'm not so sure that whomever reported this actually knows what they are talking about. The 5.7x28mm is the SS190 round and it was developed by FN for the P90 Personal Defence Weapon and Five-Seven pistol, one of its main advantages over a 9mm round (bar the armour piercing) is that it has 40% less recoil. It is not a "rifle cartridge", it was intended to be a replacement for the 9x19mm round
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).
I for one am not suggesting that we un-learn something.
What are the impacts on this regulation on making other, non-firearm related parts? Such as making replacement parts for lawnmowers, cars etc. which would require a stronger material to bear the strains of its use.
I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
CptJake wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.
I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.
What exactly is the problem you feel we need a solution to? The article states that if you want to sell or transfer the guns you need a license. So, doing so without one would already be illegal. Making one for personal use is basically making a crap one shot toy, let folks do so if they want.
Why do some folks think MOAR GOVERNMENT!!! is the solution, even without a real problem to address?
The problem I feel we need a solution to is anyone having completely unfettered access to firearms whose use cannot be traced back to the user. And "personal use" varies wildly. One person's need to shoot you in the face is technically their "personal use". Consider your rhetoric for a change rather than just parroting it.
Grey Templar wrote:I think he meant you can't regulate away evil people.
Pretty much this. If there's a will, there's a way. thus is life.
Then why do we have any laws?
Revenge. (or justice, if you'd rather)
Laws don't really prevent people from shooting, stabbing, running over, cheating, abusing each other in any way. The only thing they really allow for is recourse.
Outlaw 3d guns, and people are going to make them anyway. See zip guns for further evidence.
Outlaw 3d printers, and you're stepping in the way of progress. If you go that way, you might as well outlaw metal lathes.
Of course, the companies behind the campaign contributions will probably love continuing to control access to the ability to manufacture, so I expect to see a bill drafted requiring some license just to possess a 3d printer.
kronk wrote: Without a 3D printer, you can get better guns with much higher capacity clips and more stopping power at gun shows without a background check or registration.
This 3D gun is not the problem, nor will it be.
That is the situation as it stands. Currently.
Does anyone think that we won't have far cheaper 3D printers and far better 3D-printed guns within a decade? The phone you carry around in your pocket is far more than sufficient to get an Apollo mission to the moon. Technology advances, rapidly.
kronk wrote: Without a 3D printer, you can get better guns with much higher capacity clips and more stopping power at gun shows without a background check or registration.
This 3D gun is not the problem, nor will it be.
That is the situation as it stands. Currently.
Does anyone think that we won't have far cheaper 3D printers and far better 3D-printed guns within a decade? The phone you carry around in your pocket is far more than sufficient to get an Apollo mission to the moon. Technology advances, rapidly.
Very true. Back when this thing first started, people were talking about how you'd never be able to print out the rest of the gun. That it wouldn't be strong enough to hold up to use. We're already past that, maybe a year or so later. I gotta imagine it's a matter of time before you have a gun strong enough to handle an entire magazine at a time.
skyfi wrote: "The printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator’s barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator’s first field trial to an abrupt end." (from same article)
I'm not so sure that whomever reported this actually knows what they are talking about. The 5.7x28mm is the SS190 round and it was developed by FN for the P90 Personal Defence Weapon and Five-Seven pistol, one of its main advantages over a 9mm round (bar the armour piercing) is that it has 40% less recoil. It is not a "rifle cartridge", it was intended to be a replacement for the 9x19mm round
almost commented about the ammunition myself dread, good catch. the point being was that it was interchangeable, regardless if he got specifics of ammunition wrong.
azazel the cat wrote: I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.
kronk wrote: Sure Valion. I'm not disputing that in 10 years you can print out a semi-automatic rifle.
BUT, aren't there bigger holes in our gun laws to go after right now? I just think this is a red herring (at the moment).
Close the gun show loop holes.
As I've said a couple times now, I don't think there's anything that can be done about this. The internet lost us that opportunity before we even knew we had it.
And you're correct, at the moment, this is nothing more than a novelty.
I carry a pistol daily, and own several. I threw some bucks towards the NRA-ILA during the latest legislative debacle. I called my senator. I recognize that getting a gun isn't at all difficult for even a semi-motivated criminal currently, and I recognize that's the unpleasant price we pay for being a nation that values our right to firearms for uses beyond purely sport shooting (and I certainly wouldn't advocate changing that)...but this will, eventually, completely remove even that low bar to entry for criminals, and that concerns me. I don't see a way to prevent it, but it concerns me, and I'm not sure I understand what I would almost term the knee-jerk dismissal of any suggestion that this could be anything but a purely positive development.
azazel the cat wrote: I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).
That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.
Soladrin wrote: So, simple question. Is making an untraceable fire arm illegal?
If the anwser is yes, then this thing is Illegal to start with.
The answer as all ways in the U.S. Legal system is "Sort of". Making undetectable firearms is illegal, which is why this doohickey has 6oz of scrap metal inserted into it. However untraceable arms? You'd have to define it. I can make a gun in my basement, including an AK, and as long as it doesn't fall under an NFA category (short barreled, full auto, etc) it's perfectly legal as long as it's for my personal use. If I sell the weapon, then I'm in big trouble.
Easy E wrote: Perhaps in a decade we can get to the real solution for gun violence.
Moar GUnz!1!!!!111!!!
I suspect that will be the answer, actually, and possibly one pursued by more than just the US if 3D printed guns become common.
The other possibilities are incredibly draconian penalties for any crime involving a firearm, or internet monitoring that will have the ACLU wistfully looking back on the golden days of the Patriot Act.
Though azazel may be right regarding material limitation policies. We'll see.
azazel the cat wrote: I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).
That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.
industries won't use these. They are not strong enough for a lot of stuff vs. cost.
Now what you could do is have a Kinkos version, but again, a certain minimum strength to print is probably required.
azazel the cat wrote: I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).
That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.
You're being silly. Regulating the strength of the plastics destroys a lot of capability for very little gain, in fact you have no proof the loss of capability really will serve ANY real purpose but you want to pre-emptively use the gov't to regulate it.
Just as regulating ephedrine empowered the Mexican cartels (who now produce 80% of the meth consumed in the US from precursors from China and other countries) the regulations never really work as intended. In this particular case you are advocating a knee jerk reaction to something that just is not a real problem. Do you want to also regulate lathes and steel stock that can be used to make real metal guns?
kronk wrote: Without a 3D printer, you can get better guns with much higher capacity clips and more stopping power at gun shows without a background check or registration.
This 3D gun is not the problem, nor will it be.
That really depends on how much it's refined.
3D printing can be VERY precise and, when done right, can actually be better than normal manufacturing.
I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.
I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.
tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.
Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.
I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.
Sensible. I'm for it.
They would. manufacturing firearms requires a higher level FFL permit, regardless of how its manufactured. So we're good to go on that front Melissia.
I find this extremely alarming but I also realise there's diddley-squat that can be done about it. The blueprints will only become more sophisticated and the printers will only become cheaper.
I say this as someone who is pretty much the polar opposite of a gun fan. It's my firm belief that if you're not a member of a police firearms unit or the armed forces, getting a sniff of a gun should be extremely difficult. If anything I think this country's gun laws should be stricter (if you think that makes me sound draconian, well, so be it). But I'm also not naive enough to think that legislation will be able to stop those who want these things from getting them.
Quote from the designer:
"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."
azazel the cat wrote: I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?
Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).
That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.
You're being silly. Regulating the strength of the plastics destroys a lot of capability for very little gain, in fact you have no proof the loss of capability really will serve ANY real purpose but you want to pre-emptively use the gov't to regulate it.
Just as regulating ephedrine empowered the Mexican cartels (who now produce 80% of the meth consumed in the US from precursors from China and other countries) the regulations never really work as intended. In this particular case you are advocating a knee jerk reaction to something that just is not a real problem. Do you want to also regulate lathes and steel stock that can be used to make real metal guns?
Even though I'm really just spitballing so far, I have no desire to engage with you if your default setting is a strawman, a slippery slope and a nirvana fallacy. Please learn what these three things are, and then formulate an argument that is not based on them. I understand your desire to have complete, unfettered access to armaments is very important to you, but if you do desire to have this debate with me then I will ask that you use a proper argument not based in pure rhetoric.
Actually he's the one saying you're the guy going off the deep end. You're essentially arguing steels and irons outside of pig iron should be limited, because some might be used for a firearm.
As noted, its already illegal to make one without a special license, much less the illegality of one that connot be detected.
Now what should trip is the ability to make magazines, and of course a rocket propelled chainsaw...
"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."
That sounds like a scary future to me.
"Your old road is agin', please get outta the new one if you can't lend your hand. The times, they are a'changin."
We live in a world where the average person, given effort and dedication, can finally produce things that are on par with corporations. There's people out there who have built their own homemade drones, homemade robots, yes, homemade guns. I can implement full home automation. Services such as Kickstarter provide a funding process for things worth distributing. If there was ever a time you could be able to literally create anything you can imagine, now would be it. It's a good thing the political players don't have so much say in it anymore.
You think it's scary. I think it's the best thing ever. Now is an amazing time to be alive.
azazel the cat wrote: The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).
That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.
And my point was that the material being used to make innocuous objects that are required to bear a great deal of stress to operate safely (lawnmower blades, car parts etc.) will be the same material that people can re-purpose to manufacture firearms.
I notice how you also said that "the US government almost prevented" meth becoming a problem, but obviously haven't.
Melissia wrote: That really depends on how much it's refined.
3D printing can be VERY precise and, when done right, can actually be better than normal manufacturing.
I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.
I have no issue with anything being properly produced by fully licensed individuals with the correct skill set
Melissia wrote: Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:
tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.
Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.
Sorry if this has come up already, but has anyone thought or mentioned about the smuggling possibilities for plastic guns? I don't know much about this sort of thing, but surely plastic guns would be nearly impossible to detect by the usual methods?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I notice how you also said that "the US government almost prevented" meth becoming a problem, but obviously haven't.
Yeah, that was kinda exactly my point. They were almost able to, but failed. I see a parallel here, wherein they haven't failed yet.
And your freedom to print lawnmower parts is one that would be gladly sacrificed if it will help prevent you from printing a handgun, particularly since it is a freedom that you have never known, nor considered a reasonable tradeoff.
I think at this juncture, I must ask: do you honestly not see a problem with anyone being able to obtain an untraceable firearm at the push of a button?
"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."
That sounds like a scary future to me.
"Your old road is agin', please get outta the new one if you can't lend your hand. The times, they are a'changin."
We live in a world where the average person, given effort and dedication, can finally produce things that are on par with corporations. There's people out there who have built their own homemade drones, homemade robots, yes, homemade guns. I can implement full home automation. Services such as Kickstarter provide a funding process for things worth distributing. If there was ever a time you could be able to literally create anything you can imagine, now would be it. It's a good thing the political players don't have so much say in it anymore.
You think it's scary. I think it's the best thing ever. Now is an amazing time to be alive.
exalted +1
azazel the cat wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I notice how you also said that "the US government almost prevented" meth becoming a problem, but obviously haven't.
Yeah, that was kinda exactly my point. They were almost able to, but failed. I see a parallel here, wherein they haven't failed yet.
And your freedom to print lawnmower parts is one that would be gladly sacrificed if it will help prevent you from printing a handgun, particularly since it is a freedom that you have never known, nor considered a reasonable tradeoff.
I think at this juncture, I must ask: do you honestly not see a problem with anyone being able to obtain an untraceable firearm at the push of a button?
The ATF think's it's okie dokie (minus that "push of a button bit")
"Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news? For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution. The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following: … (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. In addition, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines the term “machinegun” as: … any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. Finally, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 922(r), specifically states the following: It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the…[GCA]…Section 925(d)(3).as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes …. Also, 27 C.F.R. § 478.39 states: … (a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes …. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of [§478.151(formerly 178.151)]; or (3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm. (c) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts [tabulated below] are: (1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings, or castings. (2) Barrels. (3) Barrel extensions. (4) Mounting blocks (trunnions). (5) Muzzle attachments. (6) Bolts. (7) Bolt carriers. (8) Operating rods. (9) Gas pistons. (10) Trigger housings. (11) Triggers. (12) Hammers. (13) Sears. (14) Disconnectors. (15) Buttstocks. (16) Pistol grips. (17) Forearms, handguards. (18) Magazine bodies. (19) Followers. (20) Floor plates. … As a result of a 1989 study by the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the importability of certain firearms, an import ban was placed on military-style firearms. This ban included not only military-type firearms, but also extended to firearms with certain features that were considered to be “nonsporting.” Among such nonsporting features were the ability to accept a detachable magazine; folding/telescoping stocks; separate pistol grips; and the ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights. Please note that the foreign parts kits that are sold through commercial means are usually cut up machineguns, such as Russian AK-47 types, British Sten types, etc. Generally, an acceptable semiautomatic copy of a machinegun is one that has been significantly redesigned. The receiver must be incapable of accepting the original fire-control components that are designed to permit full automatic fire. The method of operation should employ a closed-bolt firing design that incorporates an inertia-type firing pin within the bolt assembly. Further, an acceptably redesigned semiautomatic copy of nonsporting firearm must be limited to using less than 10 of the imported parts listed in 27 CFR § 478.39(c). Otherwise, it is considered to be assembled into a nonsporting configuration per the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) and is thus a violation of § 922(r). Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."
azazel the cat wrote: And your freedom to print lawnmower parts is one that would be gladly sacrificed if it will help prevent you from printing a handgun, particularly since it is a freedom that you have never known, nor considered a reasonable tradeoff.
Sort of undermines the point of having 3D printers in the home then if you cannot replicate parts easily, especially those that cannot be obtained. Especially parts for cars etc. that are no longer easy to obtain.
azazel the cat wrote: I think at this juncture, I must ask: do you honestly not see a problem with anyone being able to obtain an untraceable firearm at the push of a button?
I don't know why you're asking me that question because I have not been advocating for the ability to print guns at home. As should be apparent from these quotes;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yeah, that's what my take was on it too. So in its current guise its hardly a viable weapon for many nefarious purposes
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I could see these type of guns in their current state as likely ending up decided by the Supreme Court to be a type of weapon that a well regulated militia does not use/need, in a similar manner to sawn-off shotguns (name of the case escapes me now)
Melissia wrote: I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.
I have no issue with anything being properly produced by fully licensed individuals with the correct skill set
Asking you to substantiate your desire to see materials "regulated-heavily" with something approaching a workable solution does not mean that I favour guns being printed.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why 3D printed weapons are a problem when it is so easy to get hold of much better real weapons.
That depends where you live.
The only real way of combating this is to make possession of one of these firearms, and/or the files needed to print one, a serious criminal offence which would result in a prison term.
Then did you miss the part about where, in response to a question of "how, exactly" I said I was just spitballing an idea, based off of the US's could-have-worked-and-almost-did example with regulating the supplies to make meth?
I don't have a perfect solution to the problem, and if you are assuming that I'm positing my solution as perfect then that is your own mistaken appeal to my authority, and I apologize if I come across as such.
My general thought pretty much ends with this: I think the ability to create untraceable firearms with the push of a button is a nightmare scenario, criminologically-speaking, and if one solution works at only the expense of preventing someone from making engine parts they cannot already, then that is a tradeoff that I'm willing to take. But if anyone disagrees, I think it's important they at least accept the consequences of that new freedom after considering it beyond its mere rhetoric.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why 3D printed weapons are a problem when it is so easy to get hold of much better real weapons.
I agree in the case of the US. There are so many weapons floating around out there, that anyone who wants a gun can usually just raid Grandpappy's arsenal for what they want.
Here in the UK though? I don't see it becoming a major risk until they can make one on a 3D printer that costs under a thousand pounds. Then I see it becoming a big problem, fast. All those chavs who carry knives to prove how well 'ard they are, will suddenly be packing firearms.
I'm not going to lie when I say that a development like that would scare me. Probably to the point where I would feel the need to acquire my own firearm for home and personal protection.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why 3D printed weapons are a problem when it is so easy to get hold of much better real weapons.
I agree in the case of the US. There are so many weapons floating around out there, that anyone who wants a gun can usually just raid Grandpappy's arsenal for what they want.
Here in the UK though? I don't see it becoming a major risk until they can make one on a 3D printer that costs under a thousand pounds. Then I see it becoming a big problem, fast. All those chavs who carry knives to prove how well 'ard they are, will suddenly be packing firearms.
I'm not going to lie when I say that a development like that would scare me. Probably to the point where I would feel the need to acquire my own firearm for home and personal protection.
Be sure to get the Smith & Wesson file, not the Glock file. You gon't want to be come a Glock fanatic brgging about an at best mediocre file. Get the Best. get a Les Baer file.
azazel the cat wrote: Then did you miss the part about where, in response to a question of "how, exactly" I said I was just spitballing an idea, based off of the US's could-have-worked-and-almost-did example with regulating the supplies to make meth?
I don't have a perfect solution to the problem, and if you are assuming that I'm positing my solution as perfect then that is your own mistaken appeal to my authority, and I apologize if I come across as such.
I did see your response, several pages after I asked you and you recycled ideas with massive holes in them, or that had previously failed before. I wasn't looking for a perfect solution because in the real world they rarely exist. I was hoping for a workable one though.
British law defines a "pistol" as a firearm with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm[16] (this definition encompasses revolvers, revolving pistols).
So I can't have a long barrelled pistol/revolver it seems.
"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."
That sounds like a scary future to me.
"Your old road is agin', please get outta the new one if you can't lend your hand. The times, they are a'changin."
We live in a world where the average person, given effort and dedication, can finally produce things that are on par with corporations. There's people out there who have built their own homemade drones, homemade robots, yes, homemade guns. I can implement full home automation. Services such as Kickstarter provide a funding process for things worth distributing. If there was ever a time you could be able to literally create anything you can imagine, now would be it. It's a good thing the political players don't have so much say in it anymore.
You think it's scary. I think it's the best thing ever. Now is an amazing time to be alive.
Now, I think you're putting words in my mouth and there's no need. Just because I think you shouldn't be allowed to make certain items doesn't make me a Luddite regarding 3D printing. You say today is an amazing time to be alive, and I agree.
But we draw the line at different parts of it. I find it just as alarming that someone could Google how to make a gun out of household junk as they could "print" one, it's just I see an opportunity here to at least try to regulate the latter. This goes back to what I said in the rest of my post, you know I think it should be as hard as possible for a civilian to acquire a gun made using existing methods, and I think that should apply to these as well.
The inventor says he foresees a world where you're "pretty much able to have whatever you want." The part I find scary is obviously not that you can make robots to do your dusting or whatever, it's the part where you would be able to get more or less on a whim something that in my opinion should be very difficult to obtain in the first place.
Now, I think you're putting words in my mouth and there's no need. Just because I think you shouldn't be allowed to make certain items doesn't make me a Luddite regarding 3D printing. You say today is an amazing time to be alive, and I agree.
But we draw the line at different parts of it. I find it just as alarming that someone could Google how to make a gun out of household junk as they could "print" one, it's just I see an opportunity here to at least try to regulate the latter. This goes back to what I said in the rest of my post, you know I think it should be as hard as possible for a civilian to acquire a gun made using existing methods, and I think that should apply to these as well.
I think we missed the opportunity to regulate printed guns, as a function of regulation of the weapons themselves, the moment it became possible to do so. I see zero method for doing it at this point without either rendering the 3d home printing industry illegal or functionally useless.
The inventor says he foresees a world where you're "pretty much able to have whatever you want." The part I find scary is obviously not that you can make robots to do your dusting or whatever, it's the part where you would be able to get more or less on a whim something that in my opinion should be very difficult to obtain in the first place.
And here is where the underlying philosophies you and I possess will forever divide: I have literally zero issues with the possession of objects. There are no evil objects. There are no bad objects. There are bad people. Ergo, we don't punish objects with non-existence, we punish people for being evil. It's an largely reactionary system of dealing with things, which is unfortunate, but laws are a largely reactionary system by nature.
And here is where the underlying philosophies you and I possess will forever divide
This is certainly true, and I'm at least glad you didn't try to magically change my mind as some people probably would.
I'm cynical enough to be well aware that even if there were any attempts made to regulate this they would be a token effort at best. Look at what a good job we do of keeping illegal material off the internet already...
azazel the cat wrote: Then did you miss the part about where, in response to a question of "how, exactly" I said I was just spitballing an idea, based off of the US's could-have-worked-and-almost-did example with regulating the supplies to make meth?
I don't have a perfect solution to the problem, and if you are assuming that I'm positing my solution as perfect then that is your own mistaken appeal to my authority, and I apologize if I come across as such.
I did see your response, several pages after I asked you and you recycled ideas with massive holes in them, or that had previously failed before. I wasn't looking for a perfect solution because in the real world they rarely exist. I was hoping for a workable one though.
You should point out those "holes", or else not claim it.
daedalus wrote: I just don't see how, simply because it's a gun, it becomes bad. Relatively untraceable not-guns exist now and can be used to kill people.
That's no reason to encourage the construction of more of them. Imagine if terrorists came in to the country with plastic weapons undetected and decided to start assassinating people? Or even just came in, bought a 3d printer, and made the guns on the spot.
Undetectable weapons make the government nervous, and no government is going to like them being produced.
Like the banning of an innocuous substance which would undermine the idea of home 3D printers, or following a legislative path that has already proven ineffective (a la crystal meth), or how heavy regulation has not worked against piracy. Those points which I've made several times, are they the ones you'd like me to repeat again?
Tracing the gun isn't the end all be all of tracing a crime.
A gun used in a crime can have its barrel replaced with a different barrel, making the striations impossible to match. And as long as the person collected the shell casings they won't be able to trace the strike marks either.
Yes it makes the job harder but its hard enough to trace a gun as is. Largely because you actually have to find the gun in question first to make a match. Or have had the gun in question be used in a previous crime in which it was identified.
If a terrorist is caught with the printed gun he probably also got caught with a lot of other stuff that would incriminate him as well. Plus whatever evidence was used to track him down in the first place.
its really no different than a gun made with rubber bands, a metal tube, and a nail.
azazel the cat wrote: Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Both sides are idiots. If these guys really wanted to do what they claim to want to do, they should have waited until 3D printers are ubiquitous before giving their opponents the motive to try to cripple the technology. And the opponents are idiots if they think "hit cartridge with pin" is a technology that can be suppressed by censorship.
I never said anything about tracing a gun. I was talking about detecting it before it was used in the first place, such as at airport security.
A gun made of "rubber bands, a metal tube, and a nail", aside from being less lethal, would be easier to find and prevent from getting anywhere sensitive than a plastic gun.
azazel the cat wrote: Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Sorry I missed this earlier, but can I ask why the US in particular has to get ahead of this? Its not as though the technology and knowledge are only accessible in the United States, lots of other countries might want to pay attention to this also.
Grey Templar wrote:I think he meant you can't regulate away evil people.
Pretty much this. If there's a will, there's a way. thus is life.
Then why do we have any laws?
Revenge. (or justice, if you'd rather)
Laws don't really prevent people from shooting, stabbing, running over, cheating, abusing each other in any way. The only thing they really allow for is recourse.
I think they must have some impact as it at least inconveniences the criminals or makes them consider if the criminal behaviour is really worth the trouble.
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be.
Uh...No?
Let me explain: I can't make anything that withstands firing pressure pressure with my 3D printer. Hm, darn. BRB, 3D printing out a negative of a barrel and bolt, followed by me, a propane burner, and a months worth of aluminum i was saving for recycle are going to go sand casting in the garage.
This is to say nothing of someone modding the machine itself to work with better plastics (Assuming they can't work with them by default...a bad assumption in a lot of cases, and in the rest..Frankly, if you can figure out a 3d printer, you're probably mentally capable of learning how to mod the stupid thing.) ....now how would you get these plastics? Well, chances are, if someone is making something out of material X, you can probably buy an unregulated item made from X, and melt the SOB down.
See: AR-15 lower made from HDPE cutting boards.
I'm sorry, but no amount of legal finger wiggling is going to make this go away at this point, short of shutting down the internet, and even then I'm pretty sure the information will get out there.
I agree with heading this sort of thing off before it gets too much of a foot hold. While Gun's should be available to anyone of a certain age limit, and I don't think the government should regulate guns as much as they want too....
THIS means that any mentally handicapped person could just print one off and start waving it around. A sixteen year old getting bullied may/may not think of putting a gun together with tubes or anything of the sort, but suddenly they find a gun blueprint on 4Chan/Reddit, print one off and put it together....
This is just a giant can of worms that should just stay closed.
No, but we can still make it illegal to produce them. This would not stop people from being able to produce them any more than making murder illegal stops someone from murdering-- but it would be enough to punish people who did it through revoking their licenses, fines, and jailtime. and thus discourage more people from doing it.
And in fact it already is illegal to produce a gun which is undetectable by a metal detector-- licensed gun manufacturers cannot legally make them, either.
It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.
If after further development of 3DP tech this does not explode in popularity it will be purely because there is no demand for it, as the legal market for guns is still permissive enough that it makes it largely a novelty.
The people who would, in the immediate, go out and invest in this just so they could make something underhanded is a pretty laughable concept given that for the same approximate investment in money and know how, one could get a small CNC set up and start building them out of actual metal, and be making things more like STENs than 1800s-esque single shot handguns.
THIS means that any mentally handicapped person could just print one off and start waving it around. A sixteen year old getting bullied may/may not think of putting a gun together with tubes or anything of the sort, but suddenly they find a gun blueprint on 4Chan/Reddit, print one off and put it together....
I would think a mentally handicapped person may not have the mental capacity for it at all...they are, after all, handicaped.
Similarly...why do you assume that gun blueprints made of sheet steel, tubes, and seamless tubing aren't floating around NOW already? Particularly on 4chan. A 16 year old can also probably get into a school metal shop and work on small parts out of sight a lot easier than he can get mommy and daddy to let him buy a 1300 dollar+ 3d printer, to boot.
SOFDC wrote: It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.
Dunno why you throw Prohibition in there. Prohibition is more like the recent attempts to ban guns; it's something that's been part of the country since the start that the government has decided they don't like us having.
If after further development of 3DP tech this does not explode in popularity it will be purely because there is no demand for it, as the legal market for guns is still permissive enough that it makes it largely a novelty.
The people who would, in the immediate, go out and invest in this just so they could make something underhanded is a pretty laughable concept given that for the same approximate investment in money and know how, one could get a small CNC set up and start building them out of actual metal, and be making things more like STENs than 1800s-esque single shot handguns.
Difference being, I could get unto a plane using something like this (Assuming you could make a plastic bullet.... actually, I don't know if Bullets are banned. Would be kinda silly to ban something so harmless, but eh, what do I know?) where as a Metal Gun would be spotted at the gate....
It's yet another thing someone decided to make illegal, that the people wanted, paper be danged.
Difference being, I could get unto a plane using something like this
And? You could get onto a plane with a dagger made of carbon fiber too, and probably be a lot more effective than a single low pressure pistol round. This does not warrant jumping over any and all industries and people that work with carbon fiber, nowhere near.
Assuming you could make a plastic bullet....
For the sake of the argument, i'll throw this out there: Ceramic projectiles. That they are ridiculously finnicky, expensive, and hard to make is beside the point. They can be made. This, however, also does not justify jumping on everyones heads over ceramic.
The alcohol prohibition did actually reduce the amount of alcohol consumed (roughly in half) but from what I understand there were a whole lot of new problems introduced because of it.
It's yet another thing someone decided to make illegal, that the people wanted, paper be danged.
Difference being, I could get unto a plane using something like this
And? You could get onto a plane with a dagger made of carbon fiber too, and probably be a lot more effective than a single low pressure pistol round. This does not warrant jumping over any and all industries and people that work with carbon fiber, nowhere near.
Assuming you could make a plastic bullet....
For the sake of the argument, i'll throw this out there: Ceramic projectiles. That they are ridiculously finnicky, expensive, and hard to make is beside the point. They can be made. This, however, also does not justify jumping on everyones heads over ceramic.
The problem with those arguments is that A) Carbon Fiber Daggers are an INDUSTRY, and B) Ceramic Projectiles are "Finnicky, expensive, and hard to make".
THESE, anyone can pump the digits into the machine and have a gun. ANYONE. From Policeman Bob, Law Abiding Susie, psychiatric patient Steve, or Tommy Too-little-supervision.
A Plastic Bullet must be seen as, while not practical in the mass production, at least possible. If you can't see the reasons why a untraceable, unpreventable, and easily obtained ranged weapon wouldn't be a danger to society at large, I feel sorry for every victim of the next couple of John Wilkes Booth that comes to being.
It's not about how low pressure they are, or that you can only have one bullet; once this becomes cheap to make, Billy The-Too-Bullied will be able to just print off twenty of them and walk into any school to remake this scene from the matrix: (0:16-0:26)
That is probably because the thing they were trying to curb had been legal before. So its not a great comparison between Alcohol and Gun Violence. Gun Violence is and always has been illegal.
The people committing gun violence are not going to care if guns are illegal if they have already committed an illegal act. Alcohol was different in that regard, it was legal to drink before Prohibition.
It would be better to measure how much Alcohol related crime there was before and during Prohibition to properly compare it to this situation.
If you can't see the reasons why a untraceable, unpreventable, and easily obtained ranged weapon wouldn't be a danger to society at large, I feel sorry for every victim of the next couple of John Wilkes Booth that comes to being.
Except that is missing the point entirely. This entire situation is about like showing a group of workers an electric screwdriver for the first time, who have never bothered to notice that they all have manual screwdrivers in their toolboxes already.
If you are sincerely worried about tommy-got-bullied going and getting his hands on a rather pricey and visible piece of machinery, figuring out how to run it properly, and making an untraceable weapon, you are probably in for a very hard life, because if he paid attention in shop or chemistry, it's quite likely hes equally capable of a nice untraceable machine gun or explosives an order of magnitude more effective and exactly as high on the visibility scale.
THESE, anyone can pump the digits into the machine and have a gun. ANYONE. From Policeman Bob, Law Abiding Susie, psychiatric patient Steve, or Tommy Too-little-supervision.
And this is different from the CNC setups that are on the more user friendly side of the spectrum, that have been around for years...HOW...exactly? Do you really think it's hard to plug in a pre-made program, clamp a block according to the instructions and push the button? Math's already been done. Paths already been done.
Heck, "Ye Olde" manual machines aren't hard. A weekend of instruction gets you to the point that this 3D printer is at now, easily (In terms of making weapons.). Can you do basic math and follow a set of instructions? Well there you go.
Point is, there's no pandora`s box in danger of being shoved open, spilling a tidal wave of blood and dead babies forth. It was opened years ago, and it was opened big time. Might just be time for society to start worrying more about making sure that its members aren't stepped on daily than what they might do after long terms of abuse. God forbid that happen though.
I like to see that...smooth bore...52 cal......50 ft for the trigger rope and dirt berm between me and the rifle,,,,,corona's on ice because...well you know...its a hot day and we're playing with a loaded weapon...
If you can't see the reasons why a untraceable, unpreventable, and easily obtained ranged weapon wouldn't be a danger to society at large, I feel sorry for every victim of the next couple of John Wilkes Booth that comes to being.
Except that is missing the point entirely. This entire situation is about like showing a group of workers an electric screwdriver for the first time, who have never bothered to notice that they all have manual screwdrivers in their toolboxes already.
If you are sincerely worried about tommy-got-bullied going and getting his hands on a rather pricey and visible piece of machinery, figuring out how to run it properly, and making an untraceable weapon, you are probably in for a very hard life, because if he paid attention in shop or chemistry, it's quite likely hes equally capable of a nice untraceable machine gun or explosives an order of magnitude more effective and exactly as high on the visibility scale.
THESE, anyone can pump the digits into the machine and have a gun. ANYONE. From Policeman Bob, Law Abiding Susie, psychiatric patient Steve, or Tommy Too-little-supervision.
And this is different from the CNC setups that are on the more user friendly side of the spectrum, that have been around for years...HOW...exactly? Do you really think it's hard to plug in a pre-made program, clamp a block according to the instructions and push the button? Math's already been done. Paths already been done.
Heck, "Ye Olde" manual machines aren't hard. A weekend of instruction gets you to the point that this 3D printer is at now, easily (In terms of making weapons.). Can you do basic math and follow a set of instructions? Well there you go.
Point is, there's no pandora`s box in danger of being shoved open, spilling a tidal wave of blood and dead babies forth. It was opened years ago, and it was opened big time. Might just be time for society to start worrying more about making sure that its members aren't stepped on daily than what they might do after long terms of abuse. God forbid that happen though.
So you seriously cannot see how these instructions and a future where 3D printers are a house hold commodity would be problematic?
Yes, someone could make a weapon by other means, but still not as easily as with one of these blueprints. Also, bullied kids tend to not pay attention to what's going on in class, and typically become escapists, mostly into the internet.
Also, aren't most gun instruction books/sites already Illegal? Shouldn't these be the same?
If you can't see the reasons why a untraceable, unpreventable, and easily obtained ranged weapon wouldn't be a danger to society at large, I feel sorry for every victim of the next couple of John Wilkes Booth that comes to being.
Except that is missing the point entirely. This entire situation is about like showing a group of workers an electric screwdriver for the first time, who have never bothered to notice that they all have manual screwdrivers in their toolboxes already.
If you are sincerely worried about tommy-got-bullied going and getting his hands on a rather pricey and visible piece of machinery, figuring out how to run it properly, and making an untraceable weapon, you are probably in for a very hard life, because if he paid attention in shop or chemistry, it's quite likely hes equally capable of a nice untraceable machine gun or explosives an order of magnitude more effective and exactly as high on the visibility scale.
THESE, anyone can pump the digits into the machine and have a gun. ANYONE. From Policeman Bob, Law Abiding Susie, psychiatric patient Steve, or Tommy Too-little-supervision.
And this is different from the CNC setups that are on the more user friendly side of the spectrum, that have been around for years...HOW...exactly? Do you really think it's hard to plug in a pre-made program, clamp a block according to the instructions and push the button? Math's already been done. Paths already been done.
Heck, "Ye Olde" manual machines aren't hard. A weekend of instruction gets you to the point that this 3D printer is at now, easily (In terms of making weapons.). Can you do basic math and follow a set of instructions? Well there you go.
Point is, there's no pandora`s box in danger of being shoved open, spilling a tidal wave of blood and dead babies forth. It was opened years ago, and it was opened big time. Might just be time for society to start worrying more about making sure that its members aren't stepped on daily than what they might do after long terms of abuse. God forbid that happen though.
So you seriously cannot see how these instructions and a future where 3D printers are a house hold commodity would be problematic?
Yes, someone could make a weapon by other means, but still not as easily as with one of these blueprints. Also, bullied kids tend to not pay attention to what's going on in class, and typically become escapists, mostly into the internet.
Also, aren't most gun instruction books/sites already Illegal? Shouldn't these be the same?
A bullied kid is going to pay money to get a 3-D printer so he can kill the offending jerk? Even assuming the price on these things drops a kid going through the bother of buying one and setting it up is going to be unlikely.
If the kid hasn't paid attention in class how is he going to even know how to assemble one of these things, much less input the blueprints.
And do all this without attracting suspicion? He'd have to have some pretty bad parents for them not to catch on.
Unless the kids family already has a 3-D printer I don't see a kid getting one. Even after they drop in price we are still going to be talking about a machine that costs a couple hundred bucks.
I'd say the odds of the guy just taking a kitchen knife to school are infinitely more likely.
I've a silly simple idea....program the 3D printer not accept prints or shapes of the nature of a working "hand weapon". Prints already online....no need to go through the research on creating one. Someone did it for free and posted it....
So you seriously cannot see how these instructions and a future where 3D printers are a house hold commodity would be problematic?
Not seeing and not caring are two distinct things. Given what people can do NOW, what 3d printers MAY or MAY NOT allow them to do in a future where every household MAY or MAY NOT have access to a 3d printer does not overly concern me.
Yes, someone could make a weapon by other means, but still not as easily as with one of these blueprints.
Having used "Other means" I can say no, not really any harder. I'll grant you there's less cleanup of chips and oil with one versus the other, and that working metal is far less forgiving of not following the instructions (Yet to hear of a 3d printer taking someone's hand off, or exploding because you mixed ingredients in the wrong order with a chemistry set)
Also, bullied kids tend to not pay attention to what's going on in class, and typically become escapists, mostly into the internet.
This is based on what, exactly?
Also, aren't most gun instruction books/sites already Illegal? Shouldn't these be the same?
What? No. Maybe in some other country I have absolutely zero interest in living in, but it's what you DO with the information that is criminal. I can buy books on silencers, explosive chemistry and machine guns all day long, I only cross the line when I go out and build one (And even then, there are legal avenues to pretty much all of the previous.) I can even own the machinery to make the things AND the books at the same time! Now to your second question: No.
If you can't see the reasons why a untraceable, unpreventable, and easily obtained ranged weapon wouldn't be a danger to society at large, I feel sorry for every victim of the next couple of John Wilkes Booth that comes to being.
Except that is missing the point entirely. This entire situation is about like showing a group of workers an electric screwdriver for the first time, who have never bothered to notice that they all have manual screwdrivers in their toolboxes already.
If you are sincerely worried about tommy-got-bullied going and getting his hands on a rather pricey and visible piece of machinery, figuring out how to run it properly, and making an untraceable weapon, you are probably in for a very hard life, because if he paid attention in shop or chemistry, it's quite likely hes equally capable of a nice untraceable machine gun or explosives an order of magnitude more effective and exactly as high on the visibility scale.
THESE, anyone can pump the digits into the machine and have a gun. ANYONE. From Policeman Bob, Law Abiding Susie, psychiatric patient Steve, or Tommy Too-little-supervision.
And this is different from the CNC setups that are on the more user friendly side of the spectrum, that have been around for years...HOW...exactly? Do you really think it's hard to plug in a pre-made program, clamp a block according to the instructions and push the button? Math's already been done. Paths already been done.
Heck, "Ye Olde" manual machines aren't hard. A weekend of instruction gets you to the point that this 3D printer is at now, easily (In terms of making weapons.). Can you do basic math and follow a set of instructions? Well there you go.
Point is, there's no pandora`s box in danger of being shoved open, spilling a tidal wave of blood and dead babies forth. It was opened years ago, and it was opened big time. Might just be time for society to start worrying more about making sure that its members aren't stepped on daily than what they might do after long terms of abuse. God forbid that happen though.
So you seriously cannot see how these instructions and a future where 3D printers are a house hold commodity would be problematic?
Yes, someone could make a weapon by other means, but still not as easily as with one of these blueprints. Also, bullied kids tend to not pay attention to what's going on in class, and typically become escapists, mostly into the internet.
Also, aren't most gun instruction books/sites already Illegal? Shouldn't these be the same?
A bullied kid is going to pay money to get a 3-D printer so he can kill the offending jerk? Even assuming the price on these things drops a kid going through the bother of buying one and setting it up is going to be unlikely.
If the kid hasn't paid attention in class how is he going to even know how to assemble one of these things, much less input the blueprints.
And do all this without attracting suspicion? He'd have to have some pretty bad parents for them not to catch on.
Unless the kids family already has a 3-D printer I don't see a kid getting one. Even after they drop in price we are still going to be talking about a machine that costs a couple hundred bucks.
I'd say the odds of the guy just taking a kitchen knife to school are infinitely more likely.
Why does a kid need to go out and buy one if these things become as mainstream and popular as everyone is hoping? Kids previous to 1990 weren't even really taught how to type until they got a job that required it, NOW look how many schools have a typing class standard.
Have you legitly SEEN some of these parents?
Yes, he could take a knife. But a knife is a lot less threatening than a gun, no?
So you seriously cannot see how these instructions and a future where 3D printers are a house hold commodity would be problematic?
Not seeing and not caring are two distinct things. Given what people can do NOW, what 3d printers MAY or MAY NOT allow them to do in a future where every household MAY or MAY NOT have access to a 3d printer does not overly concern me.
That's great that it doesn't concern you, I'm sure you'll change your mind when YOUR kids are the ones being shot at school
Even if you put up metal detectors (Which is something a lot of schools will do soon due to all the shootings going on. Guns won't be banned, they will have to do something), there is no detecting these. That is what makes them problematic.
Yes, someone could make a weapon by other means, but still not as easily as with one of these blueprints.
Having used "Other means" I can say no, not really any harder. I'll grant you there's less cleanup of chips and oil with one versus the other, and that working metal is far less forgiving of not following the instructions (Yet to hear of a 3d printer taking someone's hand off, or exploding because you mixed ingredients in the wrong order with a chemistry set)
So it's not a problem that it's easier/safer, but it's totally easier/safer? Contradictory much?
Also, bullied kids tend to not pay attention to what's going on in class, and typically become escapists, mostly into the internet.
This is based on what, exactly?
Um.... Any research study on the subject ever? Kids get Bullied, their grads just magically seem to drop. I wonder why....
Also, aren't most gun instruction books/sites already Illegal? Shouldn't these be the same?
What? No. Maybe in some other country I have absolutely zero interest in living in, but it's what you DO with the information that is criminal. I can buy books on silencers, explosive chemistry and machine guns all day long, I only cross the line when I go out and build one (And even then, there are legal avenues to pretty much all of the previous.) I can even own the machinery to make the things AND the books at the same time! Now to your second question: No.
The main difference is, How easy is it to come by EVERY piece needed to make those, in comparison to the plastic resin that is required to make EVERY piece of a Printed Gun? Again, we are talking about something in every house, instructions accessable by every phone (Even a burner phone that can't be traced), and something that will one day be incredibly cheap to make.
Yes, he could take a knife. But a knife is a lot less threatening than a gun, no?
If one guy pulls out a 11" bowie knife and the other pulls out a Beretta .25 pocket pistol, I am probably going to take my chances with the .25. Devil`s in the details.
Have you legitly SEEN some of these parents?
If the parents are genuinely this bad, why was CPS not called? I can say from personal and uncomfortable experience that they DO follow up, in a hurry and an electron microscope.
Or was no one actually willing to bother going out of their way to fix a problem, and kept walking, like a lot of people do with just about everything anymore?
How easy is it to come by EVERY piece needed to make those,
One trip to an industrial supply store, a steel yard, or in some cases a Lowes.
That's great that it doesn't concern you, I'm sure you'll change your mind when YOUR kids are the ones being shot at school
Just as likely to happen today as it would in this future being predicted. Your point? I'm sure that the kid intent on shooting mine on a particular day will give two flips about a metal detector at the door, rather than waiting in the parking lot or...shooting the guy at the door.
Contradictory much?
Where did I claim that metal working was forgiving for fools? I said that other methods are as invisible and efficient at producing weapons. This is true. I never claimed that the other methods wouldn't @#%*@ you up if you did not respect them.
Kids get Bullied, their grads just magically seem to drop.
A clear and definitive way to determine a persons intelligence and capacity for logical thinking, given that the apparent cause is a sudden lack of desire rather than ability.
Yes, he could take a knife. But a knife is a lot less threatening than a gun, no?
If one guy pulls out a 11" bowie knife and the other pulls out a Beretta .25 pocket pistol, I am probably going to take my chances with the .25. Devil`s in the details.
Indiana Jones taught me it's not the size of the knife in the fight, but the shortness of breath of the guy with the gun
Have you legitly SEEN some of these parents?
If the parents are genuinely this bad, why was CPS not called? I can say from personal and uncomfortable experience that they DO follow up, in a hurry and an electron microscope.
Or was no one actually willing to bother going out of their way to fix a problem, and kept walking, like a lot of people do with just about everything anymore?
A little of both. If the kids' parents are never home (Not that uncommon) or just don't listen (Slightly less common), even if they don't physically or mentally abuse their kid, they may just show disinterest. Any way, that's one kid with a problem, no real options (As few kids will go to the authorities (loose term) when bullied), and a way to make the problem go away forever.
When getting the gun involves hundreds of dollars of equipment and material and at minimum a couple months of time vs the simplicity of just snagging a steak knife out of the silverware drawer on the way to school the kid will take the knife each and every time.
The gun is only more effective if you take the construction phase out of the equation. The knife is the path of least resistance in this case.
You also have the issue of the kid getting his hands on some ammo. he can't print that and practically nobody is going to sell ammo to him.
If you really want with this.....is to make a anti personnel frag....the lethal SoB that doesn't frag but copper wire......I've seen one insurgent get caught in the kill zone of that. The "wires" are capable if going through the body armor but not the plate....I do believe the grenade were shelved halfway through 2010 due to the nature of survivability.
Jihadin wrote: If you really want with this.....is to make a anti personnel frag....the lethal SoB that doesn't frag but copper wire......I've seen one insurgent get caught in the kill zone of that. The "wires" are capable if going through the body armor but not the plate....I do believe the grenade were shelved halfway through 2010 due to the nature of survivability.
SOFDC wrote: It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.
This argument is stupid. Guns are not equivalent to drugs. One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.
Attempting to treat them as the same thing shows to me that you don't give guns the proper amount of respect they deserve. Guns need to be regulated. Thankfully, no extra laws need to be added to regulate plastic-only guns and prevent undetectable guns from becoming too common, since they are already illegal. It simply needs greater enforcement now that the means to do so is easier than before.
One last reply, so as to make my stance clear, then I'm going to stop posting in this thread.
I'm all for the development of new technologies. Hell, 3D printing has always interested me, simply due to being able to make anything I would need in home. To say "You can't create the blueprints to make a gun for a 3D Printer" is also wrong, in my book.
My problem comes from A) Hosting it on the internet, and B) the potential for the 3D printer to become a house hold item (let's say, less than $2,000 per printer).
Printing technology (I'mma just shorten it to PrinTech) being used to make guns is by far the greatest cement the 2nd Amendment could ever have. You want to take our guns? We'll just print more off, because all it would take is one of these machines to arm an entire militia (The guns WILL become more complex later on.) should our government try anything funky. I find this good, as it truly makes it to where the government is futile in telling us we can't have them.
My problem is that when PrinTech (Will be copywriting that.....) becomes a household item, ANYONE could get ahold of it, even people who shouldn't due to mental illness or simple hormonal imbalance. How many people often say "I feel like I need to shoot someone..." after a hard day at work? If PrinTech gets to be an affordable commodity, anyone will be able to, very easily. Put the specs into the Printer, go to bed, wake up, spend an hour to put it together (Or shorter, as most people who handle guns a lot can do it in three minutes or so), go shoot some fools.
So, to shorten it:
Technological advance? Good.
Assurance of Rights never being violated? Good.
Mass Production value? Good.
Household commodity? Bad.
As for the argument of buying shells, how many shootings have had the issue of getting ammo? The correct answer is none of them, for obvious reasons.
Grey Templar wrote: Good, so we shouldn't need any new regulation as they're already illegal.
I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.
Which basically sums up MOST if not ALL of our current firearms regulation issues in the United States.
It's a pity the guns rights activists in the USA are too corrupt to actually act on the idea.
Instead of reasonable, intelligent laws that are properly enforced, we get people saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on one side and, thus, the end result is "ERMAGERD, ASSAULT WEPINZ BAN!" on the other because the first side is not putting forth any honest attempts.
I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.
Jihadin wrote: I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.
Cracking down on anyone that attempts to produce plastic-only "undetectable" guns with highly publicized harsh penalties, is probably the first step that they'd take. And not likely the only one.
Melissia wrote: Cracking down on anyone that attempts to produce plastic-only "undetectable" guns with highly publicized harsh penalties, is probably the first step that they'd take. And not likely the only one.
So, similar to either the drug war or the high-profile example-making suits against internet pirates.
Neither work, leaving aside the fact that it's going to be extremely difficult to figure out who's actually making these things once they inevitably come down drastically in cost and improve drastically in quality.
Like the banning of an innocuous substance which would undermine the idea of home 3D printers, or following a legislative path that has already proven ineffective (a la crystal meth), or how heavy regulation has not worked against piracy. Those points which I've made several times, are they the ones you'd like me to repeat again?
Sorry, I must've honestly missed some of these. However, #2 I definitely addressed, and I see that you replied without lookig up what I was talking about, so I'll clarify for you.
1. As I said, the banning of an innocuous substance such as a high-density printable plastic or resin is a tradeoff that I'm willing to make. I recognize not everyone will agree, but I also said I don't have any perfect solutions.
2. The legislative path (a la crystal meth) actually would have been effective; that is why I brought it up. It failed because a massive exception was made in the legislation: when ephedrine was banned in over-the-counter medications, there was an exception made wherein medicine sold in blister packs could still contain ephedrine. Now, had the legislation been complete, most researchers and experts will tell you that meth would have gone the way of the quaalude. But unfortunately all that happened was the biker buying a hundred bottles of cough syrup at 2am simply changed his shopping list to look for two hundred packs of the same medication in gel-cap form. Had the legislation been complete, the meth industry would have never gained the traction due to its scarecity.
3. Anti-piracy legislation fails because it is impossible to stop knowledge or kill an idea; but think about how many pirated CDs there would be if all writeable CDs were banned. I'm not seeking to stop the flow of information (because I'm not that crazy) but I do think one maybe-viable solution would be to regulate the quality of the printing medium such that it is not as heavy-duty as would be required for successful firearms creation. I can't say for sure; I don't have all the answers to this.
Yet But I do think that it's a situation wherein there is no perfect solution, but anything would be better than nothing.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.
Sorry I missed this earlier, but can I ask why the US in particular has to get ahead of this? Its not as though the technology and knowledge are only accessible in the United States, lots of other countries might want to pay attention to this also.
Perhaps this is lazy reasoning on my part, but I assume that most countries with any modicum of existing gun control would be on top of this.
SOFDC wrote: It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.
This argument is stupid. Guns are not equivalent to drugs. One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.
Attempting to treat them as the same thing shows to me that you don't give guns the proper amount of respect they deserve. Guns need to be regulated. Thankfully, no extra laws need to be added to regulate plastic-only guns and prevent undetectable guns from becoming too common, since they are already illegal. It simply needs greater enforcement now that the means to do so is easier than before.
Anybody that can print out a 3D gun would be able to print out an army of 3D lawyers to protect him. That's my worry
Everybody thought atom bombs would destroy the world, and yet here we are decades later.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.
They're doing that right now in the ME with detectable weapons!
Jihadin wrote: I've a silly simple idea....program the 3D printer not accept prints or shapes of the nature of a working "hand weapon". Prints already online....no need to go through the research on creating one. Someone did it for free and posted it....
That's not a simple idea. Not only do you have to make every 3D printer incapable of receiving firmware updates and able to recognise what is and is not a gun, you also have to make it incapable of producing the components for a 3D printer that lacks these flaws.
One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.
Correct and totally irrelevant to the point. Attempting to fight a supply and demand issue by focusing almost solely on the "supply" half of it does not work very well. Yet we keep trying it, because it'll work someday! Surely!
Though do I think it's going to be NEARLY the problem people are making it out to be? Heck no. There has been no scenario presented so far that could not be carried out with equivalent ease in a world where 3d printing never existed. None. And how much of a problem has this situation been? Well....it hasn't really been one.
The staff at defense distributed are the finest trolls the internet has ever seen. He set out to stir the pot, and 3d printers are the spoon they decided to use. That's really about it.
Grey Templar wrote: Good, so we shouldn't need any new regulation as they're already illegal.
I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.
Which basically sums up MOST if not ALL of our current firearms regulation issues in the United States.
It's a pity the guns rights activists in the USA are too corrupt to actually act on the idea.
Instead of reasonable, intelligent laws that are properly enforced, we get people saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on one side and, thus, the end result is "ERMAGERD, ASSAULT WEPINZ BAN!" on the other because the first side is not putting forth any honest attempts.
Corrupt right wing politicians are not the reason that existing gun laws are not enforced. Where do you come up with this stuff?
A lack of enforcement is to blame for the lack of enforcement, plain and simple. Thousands of people fail the background check (i.e., lie on it) to purchase a firearm every year, and less than a hundred are followed up upon annually. Some of these checks are failed due to ignorance, some due to outright attempted deception. In any event, investigating people who try to buy guns, and who are denied, equates to enforcement of existing common sense laws and it never happens. Instead liberals have singled out a class of firearm that is used in less than 5% of all firearms-related crimes. Their reasoning ranges from the ignorance (i.e., "it looks scary! Machine gun machine gun!"), to outright attempts at tyranny. I don't trust anyone who wants to remove my ability to protect myself.
The truth is that guns separate free men from slaves. DefCad / Defense Distributed is putting the guns back in the hands of those who need them. Guns aren't just for government, kids.
azazel the cat wrote: Sorry, I must've honestly missed some of these. However, #2 I definitely addressed, and I see that you replied without lookig up what I was talking about, so I'll clarify for you.
1. As I said, the banning of an innocuous substance such as a high-density printable plastic or resin is a tradeoff that I'm willing to make. I recognize not everyone will agree, but I also said I don't have any perfect solutions.
As someone with more knowledge replied concerning this I believe it is appropriate to quote him;
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be.
Uh...No?
Let me explain: I can't make anything that withstands firing pressure pressure with my 3D printer. Hm, darn. BRB, 3D printing out a negative of a barrel and bolt, followed by me, a propane burner, and a months worth of aluminum i was saving for recycle are going to go sand casting in the garage.
This is to say nothing of someone modding the machine itself to work with better plastics (Assuming they can't work with them by default...a bad assumption in a lot of cases, and in the rest..Frankly, if you can figure out a 3d printer, you're probably mentally capable of learning how to mod the stupid thing.) ....now how would you get these plastics? Well, chances are, if someone is making something out of material X, you can probably buy an unregulated item made from X, and melt the SOB down.
See: AR-15 lower made from HDPE cutting boards.
I'm sorry, but no amount of legal finger wiggling is going to make this go away at this point, short of shutting down the internet, and even then I'm pretty sure the information will get out there.
Also the point of 3D printers is to allow you to print things like lawnmower blades, replacement parts etc. What you're suggesting will be the death knell for the emerging technology, so in effect you're killing off an existing idea
azazel the cat wrote: 2. The legislative path (a la crystal meth) actually would have been effective; that is why I brought it up. It failed because a massive exception was made in the legislation: when ephedrine was banned in over-the-counter medications, there was an exception made wherein medicine sold in blister packs could still contain ephedrine. Now, had the legislation been complete, most researchers and experts will tell you that meth would have gone the way of the quaalude. But unfortunately all that happened was the biker buying a hundred bottles of cough syrup at 2am simply changed his shopping list to look for two hundred packs of the same medication in gel-cap form. Had the legislation been complete, the meth industry would have never gained the traction due to its scarecity.
And you don't think that history will repeat itself as the materials being used for nefarious purposes in 3D printers also have perfectly lawful functions too?
azazel the cat wrote: 3. Anti-piracy legislation fails because it is impossible to stop knowledge or kill an idea; but think about how many pirated CDs there would be if all writeable CDs were banned. I'm not seeking to stop the flow of information (because I'm not that crazy) but I do think one maybe-viable solution would be to regulate the quality of the printing medium such that it is not as heavy-duty as would be required for successful firearms creation.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but this sounds like a repitition of your first point. Also killing writeable CDs would not have been a solution because people still have hard drives, USB cable and other storage and playback devices that could do the same job as a CD-R/W, but much better. So a digital storage medium would have been killed off for little practical benefit.
azazel the cat wrote: But I do think that it's a situation wherein there is no perfect solution, but anything would be better than nothing.
As I said before I'm not looking for a perfect solution. Only one that stands a chance of working. Hamstringing emerging technology because a minority of people will use it for ill does not seem like a proportionate response. It would be similar to turning off the internet, or severely restricting it, because of some of the activities that take place on it.
azazel the cat wrote: Perhaps this is lazy reasoning on my part, but I assume that most countries with any modicum of existing gun control would be on top of this.
The US does have gun control, along with many other countries. It just seemed strange that you singled out the US in particular when we are talking about an issue that is unlikely to respect borders
Melissia wrote: Cracking down on anyone that attempts to produce plastic-only "undetectable" guns with highly publicized harsh penalties, is probably the first step that they'd take. And not likely the only one.
Well, the legislation is already there so does that mean that the people featured in the BBC's video will now be charged?
"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."" (bolded parts for those who don't read)
Really not sure how you guys think it's illegal to produce a firearm without a serial #. Maybe I'm completely wrong on the matter here but, my snooping for info didn't take 15 seconds to figure it out for myself.. (and taking a second, third, and nth look at has me putting doubts in my mind but I could just be overthinking it.)
It's (seemingly to me at this point) perfectly legal under US law to produce a firearm without a serial number (which someone is getting referred to as trace-ability it seems in this thread). You just can't transfer the weapon unless it meets the required identification parameters.
So you guys need to pick your poison. Either say you think we need new laws to curtail the innovation of 3d guns (counter intuitive IMHO , see zip guns, traditional weapon design blueprints available online.).... or say that the laws on the books already cover this stuff... (which they do).... You can legally print a "untraceable" (lol) 3d plastic gun for your own use but cannot transfer it under current law. If you did that would be a criminal activity and already punishable by the justice system.
if you think the justice system is leaving too big of a loophole here, thats fine and dandy and you're all entitled to that. I personally feel like the law already addresses our concerns over the issue of 3d guns... and really this should be more of a "oh neat look what things are becoming realistic..." instead of worrying so much about what someone MAY POSSIBLY ONE DAY THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY COMMENCING TO TAKE ACTION ABOUT... We all know things will be used nefariously... We know steak knives will be used nefariously too. We don't spitball and speculate about the societal implications of the existence of steak knifes though.... and you guys act like this stuff is such a huge improvement on something as easy to make as a zip gun..
To me....
The potential gains far outweigh any potential threat to us regarding this stuff. IMHO.
my 2c.
-sky
(edit: I realize the quotation says "sporting-type firearm" but then goes on to define "firearm" which the 3d gun seems to meet all the parameters of. I know that full auto, short barreled etc are prohibited and this may fall under "short barreled" but I don't think it does. Still trying to find "the law" that makes "the liberator" produced for individual use illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I know its common sense to think that a sporting-firearm would be a rifle or shotgun, but trying to find the legal basis in all of this. If anyone else looking into it, help a fella out
Automatically Appended Next Post: we have this..
"For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following:
… (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."
So by that the pistol should be readily and legally produce able for personal use.... but the other quote is what gets me, they specifically say that sporting firearms are not required to have a serial # for personal use. It doesn't say that all firearms produced.
"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."
Does this bit just not apply to people manufacutring non-sporting type firearms for their own use?
Not trying to conflate the issue, really has me scratching my head.
skyfi wrote: I know its common sense to think that a sporting-firearm would be a rifle or shotgun, but trying to find the legal basis in all of this. If anyone else looking into it, help a fella out
The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun. . .
The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (despite the latter being a form of organized competitive target shooting) nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[4] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were permitted until the definition of "sporting purpose" was further tightened in 1989). The fact that domestic production and sale of weapons identical to those prohibited from import remains legal, without any need to conform to the "sporting purposes" standard, has also led to criticism that the GCA is more a matter of economic protectionism for the benefit of U.S. firearms industry than a genuine effort to curtail gun violence.
skyfi wrote: I know its common sense to think that a sporting-firearm would be a rifle or shotgun, but trying to find the legal basis in all of this. If anyone else looking into it, help a fella out
The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun. . .
The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (despite the latter being a form of organized competitive target shooting) nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[4] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were permitted until the definition of "sporting purpose" was further tightened in 1989). The fact that domestic production and sale of weapons identical to those prohibited from import remains legal, without any need to conform to the "sporting purposes" standard, has also led to criticism that the GCA is more a matter of economic protectionism for the benefit of U.S. firearms industry than a genuine effort to curtail gun violence.
so to me, that says... That one could claim their 3d printed gun was produced for the purpose of small game hunting (not that its sensible, but loophole lookin-for here).... right?
It seems the sporting purposes only has to do with regards to intent, and the physical features they specifically list off? which it seems the only one that stands out to me would be the over all size of the gun, the detachable pistol grip (though I dont think legally the pistol grip on the liberator being a main component of the frame would fall under "pistol grip" or whatever?)
I'm no expert here. I own a 3d printer which I've yet to assemble so I'm very keen to see how all of this plays out so that I can operate under the letter of the law.
skyfi wrote: so to me, that says... That one could claim their 3d printed gun was produced for the purpose of small game hunting (not that its sensible, but loophole lookin-for here).... right?
It seems the sporting purposes only has to do with regards to intent, and the physical features they specifically list off? which it seems the only one that stands out to me would be the over all size of the gun, the detachable pistol grip (though I dont think legally the pistol grip on the liberator being a main component of the frame would fall under "pistol grip" or whatever?)
I'm no expert here. I own a 3d printer which I've yet to assemble so I'm very keen to see how all of this plays out so that I can operate under the letter of the law.
I'm not sure that the firearm produced would fall under a hunting purpose, or a competitive shooting purpose. The firearm had no iron sights, and its not clear if it has rifling etc. which may bump it into the prohibited plinking, or design interest classes.
Also you may want to read Melissa's excellent post at the top of Page 4;
Melissia wrote: Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:
tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.
Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.
So in its current guise I personally would not risk manufacturing a firearm with a 3D printer
skyfi wrote: so to me, that says... That one could claim their 3d printed gun was produced for the purpose of small game hunting (not that its sensible, but loophole lookin-for here).... right?
It seems the sporting purposes only has to do with regards to intent, and the physical features they specifically list off? which it seems the only one that stands out to me would be the over all size of the gun, the detachable pistol grip (though I dont think legally the pistol grip on the liberator being a main component of the frame would fall under "pistol grip" or whatever?)
I'm no expert here. I own a 3d printer which I've yet to assemble so I'm very keen to see how all of this plays out so that I can operate under the letter of the law.
I'm not sure that the firearm produced would fall under a hunting purpose, or a competitive shooting purpose. The firearm had no iron sights, and its not clear if it has rifling etc. which may bump it into the prohibited plinking, or design interest classes.
Also you may want to read Melissa's excellent post at the top of Page 4;
Melissia wrote: Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:
tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.
Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.
So in its current guise I personally would not risk manufacturing a firearm with a 3D printer
I believe it does have rifling. I think they described it as rather poor quality rifling leading to poor accuracy, but rifling none the less?
"it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed."
the liberator is designed with a 6 oz piece of metal in the stock (epoxied in so irremovable)... so how is this applicable? (i understand it would be illegal to produce one without the steel inside of it. the steel chunk inside of it is what makes it compliant with the aforementioned law I believe.)
the point is that this technology just shows how easy it is to make guns already, even without a 3d printer.
guns are not hard to make, any idiot with even the most basic of tools you can buy at any home dept can make a functioning "zip" gun already, and frankly to a higher durability then the extruded plastic.
where it really gets crazy, is when you leave the realm of "any idiot can do it" and enter the realm of "what can a normal person do"
take this fully functional AK-47 that was made from a shovel, elbow grease, and vodka induced energy.
its the year 2013 people, this stuff has been around for 100's of years and isnt going anywhere.
if this gun scares you, its because you dont know anything about how crooks already get/manufacture guns.
to think that criminal organizations, that often make more money then small countries, cannot buy a lathe or CNC machine (the first real 3d printer, except for you know, METAL) and load in the blueprints for a gun onto that CNC is just silly.
I have visited several medical companies that 3D print in metal. Printing bullets can be as simple as using a multi material printing head. Though the tolerances would need to be pretty good to print the case, powder and bullet (i don't know guns so names of technical parts may be wrong). Probably easiet to use traditional bullet manufacturing methods.
skyfi wrote: I believe it does have rifling. I think they described it as rather poor quality rifling leading to poor accuracy, but rifling none the less?
"it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed."
the liberator is designed with a 6 oz piece of metal in the stock (epoxied in so irremovable)... so how is this applicable? (i understand it would be illegal to produce one without the steel inside of it. the steel chunk inside of it is what makes it compliant with the aforementioned law I believe.)
The rifling, and the quality thereof, may be the deciding factor in whether or not the firearm is legal. If the rifling is of poor quality then its hard to argue that it has a sports or competitive shooting application. Also without iron sights, or the ability to mount optics this becomes even more of a hurdle.
I didn't know that about the liberator, I was basing my observations off the video and the pictures concerning the firearm produced from the OP which appears to be almost entirely plastic.
skyfi wrote: I believe it does have rifling. I think they described it as rather poor quality rifling leading to poor accuracy, but rifling none the less?
"it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed."
the liberator is designed with a 6 oz piece of metal in the stock (epoxied in so irremovable)... so how is this applicable? (i understand it would be illegal to produce one without the steel inside of it. the steel chunk inside of it is what makes it compliant with the aforementioned law I believe.)
The rifling, and the quality thereof, may be the deciding factor in whether or not the firearm is legal. If the rifling is of poor quality then its hard to argue that it has a sports or competitive shooting application. Also without iron sights, or the ability to mount optics this becomes even more of a hurdle. I didn't know that about the liberator, I was basing my observations off the video and the pictures concerning the firearm produced from the OP which appears to be almost entirely plastic.
the liberator is what is pictured. & you're pretty much right, it's almost entirely plastic, aside from the firing pin, and the 6 oz chunk of steel insert for compliance with non detectable weapon act.
a rail where sights could be added on, is very possible. I don't necessarily understand the requirement that sights be "iron" though.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a sporting firearm for an individual to legally produce one without a serial #. I suppose that is the answer I have been trying to find. I'm found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a sporting firearm without a serial # for personal use, and I have found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a "firearm" for your own personal use ....
hell i just wiki'd it and think I answered it for myself.
"The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense."
more or less if you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing a firearm for your own use, no legal requirement for a serial number. If you put one on it, and remove it, it becomes felonious. Or that is how I'm seeing it?
skyfi wrote: the liberator is what is pictured. & you're pretty much right, it's almost entirely plastic, aside from the firing pin, and the 6 oz chunk of steel insert for compliance with non detectable weapon act.
a rail where sights could be added on, is very possible. I don't necessarily understand the requirement that sights be "iron" though.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a sporting firearm for an individual to legally produce one without a serial #. I suppose that is the answer I have been trying to find. I'm found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a sporting firearm without a serial # for personal use, and I have found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a "firearm" for your own personal use ....
But this still does not get around the issue of the rifling and the accuracy of the firearm in question, which may have a direct bearing as to whether it is prohibited or not.
skyfi wrote: hell i just wiki'd it and think I answered it for myself.
"The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense."
more or less if you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing a firearm for your own use, no legal requirement for a serial number. If you put one on it, and remove it, it becomes felonious. Or that is how I'm seeing it?
If you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing firearms are you not already falling foul of the law? Genuine question because I don't know
Only firearms manufactured prior to 1968 (year of the Gun Control Act) are exempt from the serial number requirement. It appears that anything lawfully produced after this date must have a serial number. So on reading that it would appear that a firearm produced using a 3D printer would need a serial number as it was manufactured before the commencement of the 1968 Act
skyfi wrote: the liberator is what is pictured. & you're pretty much right, it's almost entirely plastic, aside from the firing pin, and the 6 oz chunk of steel insert for compliance with non detectable weapon act.
a rail where sights could be added on, is very possible. I don't necessarily understand the requirement that sights be "iron" though.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a sporting firearm for an individual to legally produce one without a serial #. I suppose that is the answer I have been trying to find. I'm found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a sporting firearm without a serial # for personal use, and I have found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a "firearm" for your own personal use ....
But this still does not get around the issue of the rifling and the accuracy of the firearm in question, which may have a direct bearing as to whether it is prohibited or not.
I don't think that a determinable level of accuracy is a defining characteristic of a legally produced firearm. It's a sensible demand in the market, which is rewarded through purchases I believe... but I don't know of a legal requirement for rifling specifically so I'm all thumbs here.. Shotguns, rifles, etc all rifled differently, so are legal short barreled shotgun-pistols (whatever they actually called) like the "Taurus Judge"... Pretty sure they are rifled, put done so in a way that the "spread" is about 20"~ diameter at 48" distance of firing... while the rifling in a traditional shotgun produces a similar spread (not exactly), but with a much larger distance required.
skyfi wrote: hell i just wiki'd it and think I answered it for myself.
"The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense."
more or less if you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing a firearm for your own use, no legal requirement for a serial number. If you put one on it, and remove it, it becomes felonious. Or that is how I'm seeing it?
If you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing firearms are you not already falling foul of the law? Genuine question because I don't know
Only firearms manufactured prior to 1968 (year of the Gun Control Act) are exempt from the serial number requirement. It appears that anything lawfully produced after this date must have a serial number. So on reading that it would appear that a firearm produced using a 3D printer would need a serial number as it was manufactured before the commencement of the 1968 Act
I think you are misreading the law. I may be missing something though. I'll quote wiki on it again "The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense."
Seems to me, the law only requires licensed firearm manufacturers to employ a serial number. Not unlicensed firearm manufacturers. They are explicitly exempt.
Kilkrazy wrote: It wouldn't be hard to put a serial number on the 3D gun.
wouldn't be hard at all. if these guys sell their designs online they will have to put serial #s on them to do biz legally. If they allow anybody who owns a 3d printer to have access to their files, to print a gun for their own personal use, no serial # is required by law as far as I can tell. They could probably even find a loophole where they could sell an individual "access" to the file to print their own gun, without a serial # under the current law, it would seem.
but I'm no lawyer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, no more difficult than putting one on a normal gun. Although being plastic it would be easier to remove, but only slightly.
but just as felonious!
and un-unnecessary if your print the thing yourself...
which lends the Q...
Could you RENT your machine to a 3rd party and let them "manufacture" their own gun by hitting "print" on YOUR machine which has been contractually rented?
That is one way route I think people will take in an attempt to get non-serial # containing guns into the hands of 3rd parties for profit. (if they really wanted to get all shady about stuff and operate under the law)
Not that its really economical, sensible, or anything, but seems like a possibly legal loophole?
skyfi wrote: Seems to me, the law only requires licensed firearm manufacturers to employ a serial number. Not unlicensed firearm manufacturers. They are explicitly exempt.
I could have mis-read it. What way does it work for unlicensed firearm manufacturers in the US? How do they get set up, are there limits on their activities and what they can produce etc.
Could you RENT your machine to a 3rd party and let them "manufacture" their own gun by hitting "print" on YOUR machine which has been contractually rented?
That is one way route I think people will take in an attempt to get non-serial # containing guns into the hands of 3rd parties for profit. (if they really wanted to get all shady about stuff and operate under the law)
Not that its really economical, sensible, or anything, but seems like a possibly legal loophole?
That may depend on prior knowledge and reasonable suspicion of whether or not you were enabling someone to break the law. You could potentially be charged with assisting in the commission of a criminal act.
I do believe you have to be licensed to be a manufacturer in the US. I could be wrong but type 6 and type 7 seem appropriate here. i forget which poster is going for their gunsmith license and would be far more knowedgeable so will bow to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License
There's no "setup" required to make your own gun in the USA... (for your own use) as far as I know. (barring you aren't making a weapon that contains prohibited mechanisms or whatever, such as full auto, short barrel shotgun etc)
Look at the link someone posted to the chap who made a ak47 from a $2 shovel....... lots of people make their own guns for their own use..
The only reason you would need a setup, and or licensing from my understanding is if you were actually SELLING/TRANSFERING ownership of the firearms you are producing.
NO FFL is required to sell guns in state from your own collection. Only if you buy and sell as a business platform.
So in short, it seems, you could legally print your own gun, with no serial number, or any licensing or setup.. AS LONG AS YOU DONT SELL OR TRANSFER A FIREARM YOU PRODUCE.. Doing so would get you in heaps of trouble.
skyfi wrote: Seems to me, the law only requires licensed firearm manufacturers to employ a serial number. Not unlicensed firearm manufacturers. They are explicitly exempt.
I could have mis-read it. What way does it work for unlicensed firearm manufacturers in the US? How do they get set up, are there limits on their activities and what they can produce etc.
Could you RENT your machine to a 3rd party and let them "manufacture" their own gun by hitting "print" on YOUR machine which has been contractually rented?
That is one way route I think people will take in an attempt to get non-serial # containing guns into the hands of 3rd parties for profit. (if they really wanted to get all shady about stuff and operate under the law)
Not that its really economical, sensible, or anything, but seems like a possibly legal loophole?
That may depend on prior knowledge and reasonable suspicion of whether or not you were enabling someone to break the law. You could potentially be charged with assisting in the commission of a criminal act.
I think that would be the only route that could pursue you, and it seems like a difficult case to make. It is a possibility that something like this could come to fruition which is what has sparked my interest.
@ frazz, I think kalish is the resident-gun-smith-in-training at dakka, or from my fuzzy memory thats whom I'm thinking it is, so curious to hear more of his take on the matter.
skyfi wrote: I think you guys are getting mixed up.
There's no "setup" required to make your own gun in the USA... (for your own use) as far as I know. (barring you aren't making a weapon that contains prohibited mechanisms or whatever, such as full auto, short barrel shotgun etc)
... or, relevant here, a weapon which has so little metal as to be undetectable. Which is currently illegal, and thus why a plastic gun is not legal-- it has to have some metal parts.
If it has enough metal to be detectable to a metal detector, it's legal, although those that want to manufacture and sell them need a manufacturer's license.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah plastic guns will be illegal, but not because people could potentially make them without a permit.
Will be? They already are.
As you said earlier, there's really no need for additional regulation here. The big worry with plastic guns is that they're almost impossible to detect with non-invasive searches. As such, anyone who makes one, no matter if they're a big manufacturer or a person who bought a 3d printer as a hobby item, is breaking the law as it currently stands.
Anyone who adds enough unremovable metal to the gun to make it detectable by a metal detector isn't breaking the law, which is how the guy in the OP got away with it. But I should remind you that the government will be VERY willing to prosecute the first person to break the law with a 3d printer-- and prosecute HARD, making it a major case and using it to intimidate others in to not doing it..
skyfi wrote: I think you guys are getting mixed up.
There's no "setup" required to make your own gun in the USA... (for your own use) as far as I know. (barring you aren't making a weapon that contains prohibited mechanisms or whatever, such as full auto, short barrel shotgun etc)
... or, relevant here, a weapon which has so little metal as to be undetectable. Which is currently illegal, and thus why a plastic gun is not legal-- it has to have some metal parts.
If it has enough metal to be detectable to a metal detector, it's legal, although those that want to manufacture and sell them need a manufacturer's license.
I'm kind of unsure why you stated this.
I have clearly stated that it required a METAL shank (WHICH THE LIBERATOR PLANS INCLUDE) to be compliant with the undetectable firearms act...
What you said was in a similar vein to "well if you make a semi automatic gun, thats legal... but if you make a full automatic, its illegal.... No offense but duh! that's why that part of the plans (the metal shank) exists. To be compliant with the law. Of course if you don't include this metal shank you will be producing an illegal firearm.... Thats pretty clearly evident.
Because people have tried to argue in this thread taht it is legal. Re-iterating the requirements of its legality is important to dispel that illusion.
skyfi wrote: I think you guys are getting mixed up.
There's no "setup" required to make your own gun in the USA... (for your own use) as far as I know. (barring you aren't making a weapon that contains prohibited mechanisms or whatever, such as full auto, short barrel shotgun etc)
Look at the link someone posted to the chap who made a ak47 from a $2 shovel....... lots of people make their own guns for their own use..
The only reason you would need a setup, and or licensing from my understanding is if you were actually SELLING/TRANSFERING ownership of the firearms you are producing.
NO FFL is required to sell guns in state from your own collection. Only if you buy and sell as a business platform.
So in short, it seems, you could legally print your own gun, with no serial number, or any licensing or setup.. AS LONG AS YOU DONT SELL OR TRANSFER A FIREARM YOU PRODUCE.. Doing so would get you in heaps of trouble.
skyfi wrote: Seems to me, the law only requires licensed firearm manufacturers to employ a serial number. Not unlicensed firearm manufacturers. They are explicitly exempt.
I could have mis-read it. What way does it work for unlicensed firearm manufacturers in the US? How do they get set up, are there limits on their activities and what they can produce etc.
Could you RENT your machine to a 3rd party and let them "manufacture" their own gun by hitting "print" on YOUR machine which has been contractually rented?
That is one way route I think people will take in an attempt to get non-serial # containing guns into the hands of 3rd parties for profit. (if they really wanted to get all shady about stuff and operate under the law)
Not that its really economical, sensible, or anything, but seems like a possibly legal loophole?
That may depend on prior knowledge and reasonable suspicion of whether or not you were enabling someone to break the law. You could potentially be charged with assisting in the commission of a criminal act.
I think that would be the only route that could pursue you, and it seems like a difficult case to make. It is a possibility that something like this could come to fruition which is what has sparked my interest.
@ frazz, I think kalish is the resident-gun-smith-in-training at dakka, or from my fuzzy memory thats whom I'm thinking it is, so curious to hear more of his take on the matter.
Agreed. He would be better. I think the issue of whether you can make a firearm for sale in the home state and not be subject to federal law is EXTREMELY tenuous right now. I think there were cases pending or adjudicated recently that kicked previous attempts aside. I could be wrong, but I don't think thats the case. Its easy to research I just haven't checked into it much at all.
I swear I explained this briefly earlier. It is legal in the United States for you to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, these 3D printer guns included, passing muster with the undetectable fireams act and the NFA are all that are required. This is for sure, tested and certified, ATF approved Federal law. However the SECOND you do something that resembles being in business, for example selling a weapon, you need to have a manufacturing permit or face the legal dropkick of the ATF. They /love/ cases like that. They usually even get to play mall ninja, dress up in masks and kick you door in!
So these pistols do have to follow some other NFA regulations, for example we know the barrels, no matter how gakky they are, are rifled, if they were smooth bores they'd be classified as an SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun)*
Now it is a federal felony to provide weapons to people who cannot legally posses firearms, I believe this includes the means to acquire firearms as well, so lending your 3D printer to a felon, who prints a gun and goes and robs a 7-11 for it, would most likely result in you being put up on charges if DOJ actually started prosecuting crimes like that again.
*Black powder smooth bore muskets are an exemption to this classification, and most firearms laws in the United States, you can even have them mailed to your door!
As to the Interstate Commerce Stuff that's going to court at some point, four or five states have "Weapons made and sold in state aren't the feds bidness" laws, (AZ, Montana, Wyoming, and Kansas off the top of my head) but those laws haven't been court tested yet.
The main point is that this just shows how low on the tech food chain guns are.
anyone with a lathe and some sheet metal tools could make an AK, anyone with a CNC machine has been able to use existing plans to "print" 3d metal guns for quite some time,
so the price tag went from a few grand to just over a grand, for a worse product.
people calling for a ban for this gun will end up shooting themselves in the foot if they ever succeeded.
This is because the ban would end up being on the printers themselves since you cannot ban knowledge.
but then, most printers can print their own parts, that is the core ethos of the design.
Maybe now we can stop trying to ban various technologies that cannot be banned and focus on the environment/economy/something productive
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah plastic guns will be illegal, but not because people could potentially make them without a permit.
Will be? They already are.
As you said earlier, there's really no need for additional regulation here. The big worry with plastic guns is that they're almost impossible to detect with non-invasive searches. As such, anyone who makes one, no matter if they're a big manufacturer or a person who bought a 3d printer as a hobby item, is breaking the law as it currently stands.
Anyone who adds enough unremovable metal to the gun to make it detectable by a metal detector isn't breaking the law, which is how the guy in the OP got away with it. But I should remind you that the government will be VERY willing to prosecute the first person to break the law with a 3d printer-- and prosecute HARD, making it a major case and using it to intimidate others in to not doing it..
I don't see "got away with it" when I look at the fellow and his actions. I don't know why you need to state "As such, anyone who makes one, no matter if they're a big manufacturer or a person who bought a 3d printer as a hobby item, is breaking the law as it currently stands."..... Its clearly evident... If you print a gun off and CHOOSE to disobey the written law regarding undetectable weapons, than that's your bad.
Seems pretty cut and dry. Don't break the law and have an example made of yourself.
1. Either get a license, put serial #s on these things and get a FFL..... and sell what you make (terrible idea i would think, think of liability when one blows up)
2. or don't get a license, don't use serial #s, and don't transfer or sell your productions. Build your designs to comply with the law.
or option 3. don't get a license, don't use serial #s, and don't comply with undetectable weapons laws
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you don't sell over state lines the federal government can't use that lovely interstate commerce clause to get you at the very least.
Now this I do know more about. This has been argued repeatedly. In general (as in pretty much always) the argument fails. SCOTUS has determined that EVEN if you grow your own crop for your own food, because it displaces food you could have bought it therefor impacts IC. Yes, thats crazy but once FDR threatened to pack them, they bent over like... well we'll just be polite and say they have been extremely supportive of federal power in this area. There's been some recent cases but I am not sure if that moved the goal post at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I swear I explained this briefly earlier. It is legal in the United States for you to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, these 3D printer guns included, passing muster with the undetectable fireams act and the NFA are all that are required. This is for sure, tested and certified, ATF approved Federal law. However the SECOND you do something that resembles being in business, for example selling a weapon, you need to have a manufacturing permit or face the legal dropkick of the ATF. They /love/ cases like that. They usually even get to play mall ninja, dress up in masks and kick you door in!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I swear I explained this briefly earlier. It is legal in the United States for you to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, these 3D printer guns included, passing muster with the undetectable fireams act and the NFA are all that are required. This is for sure, tested and certified, ATF approved Federal law. However the SECOND you do something that resembles being in business, for example selling a weapon, you need to have a manufacturing permit or face the legal dropkick of the ATF. They /love/ cases like that. They usually even get to play mall ninja, dress up in masks and kick you door in!
So these pistols do have to follow some other NFA regulations, for example we know the barrels, no matter how gakky they are, are rifled, if they were smooth bores they'd be classified as an SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun)*
Now it is a federal felony to provide weapons to people who cannot legally posses firearms, I believe this includes the means to acquire firearms as well, so lending your 3D printer to a felon, who prints a gun and goes and robs a 7-11 for it, would most likely result in you being put up on charges if DOJ actually started prosecuting crimes like that again.
*Black powder smooth bore muskets are an exemption to this classification, and most firearms laws in the United States, you can even have them mailed to your door!
As to the Interstate Commerce Stuff that's going to court at some point, four or five states have "Weapons made and sold in state aren't the feds bidness" laws, (AZ, Montana, Wyoming, and Kansas off the top of my head) but those laws haven't been court tested yet.
thanks kalish.
lets say you rent your 3d printer unknowingly to a felon, or person unauthorized to receive a firearm or means to acquire?
Ignorance of the law is no protection of it, so I'd say you're boned... but if a previously non-criminal rented the machine, printed a gun, and made himself a criminal with the gun he now produced....What legal position is the owner of the 3d printer who rented it to him in? You didn't give a gun, or means to a gun, to a criminal. You had no prior knowledge of his plan of action etc? You gave means to a gun or access to a non-criminal at the time?
Grey Templar wrote: Well if you don't sell over state lines the federal government can't use that lovely interstate commerce clause to get you at the very least.
If anything used in the manufacturing process crossed state lines the feds will use that clause to jump in and prosecute. Not saying that is the way it should be, but it is what will happen unless they have some other Fed charge to levy against their target.
It always amuses me that as soon as something that could potentially harm them people clamor for more government regulation. Then they complain that there's too much government regulation and that we are too safety minded.
You can sharpen a butter knife to kill, you can choke someone with a charging cable, you could run someone over with a golf cart and you can poison someone with bleach. We live in a deadly world, mentlegen, and the sooner we get over the fact that there are people who want to kill us and get on with our lives the better.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I swear I explained this briefly earlier. It is legal in the United States for you to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, these 3D printer guns included, passing muster with the undetectable fireams act and the NFA are all that are required. This is for sure, tested and certified, ATF approved Federal law. However the SECOND you do something that resembles being in business, for example selling a weapon, you need to have a manufacturing permit or face the legal dropkick of the ATF. They /love/ cases like that. They usually even get to play mall ninja, dress up in masks and kick you door in!
So these pistols do have to follow some other NFA regulations, for example we know the barrels, no matter how gakky they are, are rifled, if they were smooth bores they'd be classified as an SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun)*
Now it is a federal felony to provide weapons to people who cannot legally posses firearms, I believe this includes the means to acquire firearms as well, so lending your 3D printer to a felon, who prints a gun and goes and robs a 7-11 for it, would most likely result in you being put up on charges if DOJ actually started prosecuting crimes like that again.
*Black powder smooth bore muskets are an exemption to this classification, and most firearms laws in the United States, you can even have them mailed to your door!
As to the Interstate Commerce Stuff that's going to court at some point, four or five states have "Weapons made and sold in state aren't the feds bidness" laws, (AZ, Montana, Wyoming, and Kansas off the top of my head) but those laws haven't been court tested yet.
lets say you rent your 3d printer unknowingly to a felon, or person unauthorized to receive a firearm or means to acquire?
Ignorance of the law is no protection of it, so I'd say you're boned... but if a previously non-criminal rented the machine, printed a gun, and made himself a criminal with the gun he now produced....What legal position is the owner of the 3d printer who rented it to him in? You didn't give a gun, or means to a gun, to a criminal. You had no prior knowledge of his plan of action etc? You gave means to a gun or access to a non-criminal at the time?
My advice - consult a qualified attorney in your State. It seems like you're looking for hard and fast legal advice on ever changing scenarios, and there are few people qualified to give that on this site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: or in my mom's case you could run over the same person, twice in one afternoon...
lets say you rent your 3d printer unknowingly to a felon, or person unauthorized to receive a firearm or means to acquire?
Ignorance of the law is no protection of it, so I'd say you're boned... but if a previously non-criminal rented the machine, printed a gun, and made himself a criminal with the gun he now produced....What legal position is the owner of the 3d printer who rented it to him in? You didn't give a gun, or means to a gun, to a criminal. You had no prior knowledge of his plan of action etc? You gave means to a gun or access to a non-criminal at the time?
My advice - consult a qualified attorney in your State. It seems like you're looking for hard and fast legal advice on ever changing scenarios, and there are few people qualified to give that on this site.
edit: above quotation from Dreadclaw. I just fail @ dakka (jeez i really edit that into wrong place? smdh)
Naw not looking for hard and fast legal advice, more or less spit-balling/speculating for the sake of entertainment. Not that I don't think this is an important issue, I do.
If I ever intended to rent out my 3d printer I would first inquire with a local attorney (and probably put him on retainer for all of the ensuing lawsuits, lol) which I don't. I have to admit I find the conversation very entertaining
Fair enough. From past experience I've usually found that anyone who asks that many questions about a dubious enterprise is strongly contemplating it/has done it already and wants a way to cover their rear.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Fair enough. From past experience I've usually found that anyone who asks that many questions about a dubious enterprise is strongly contemplating it/has done it already and wants a way to cover their rear.
How is firearms production a dubious enterprise?
I know I laid out a worst-case scenario for my example and it was done for theoretical purposes. I don't typically lend out expensive equipment of mine, and consequently don't think I would lend my 3d printer out based on all the hubb-bub about this.
If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)
I don't know. Perhaps a bunch of gung ho idiots will print up shoddy guns that blow up and kill themselves. Then there will be a glut of cheap "used only once" 3D printers on eBay.
Back on topic, the file for the gun would not need a serial number because it is not a gun. It would be the job of the person printing it to add a serial number, if required.
If the originator of the file wanted to prevent people from copying it he could add a serial number to each one, but I get the impression he is a super libertarian who wants cheap guns for all, and will give away the file.
Per Mom: accident tee hee!
Per Dad: intentional crazy red head. (guess who she ran over)
Gotta watch out for those red heads, fierce temper
skyfi wrote: How is firearms production a dubious enterprise?
I know I laid out a worst-case scenario for my example and it was done for theoretical purposes. I don't typically lend out expensive equipment of mine, and consequently don't think I would lend my 3d printer out based on all the hubb-bub about this.
If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)
Its not, nor did I claim it was. Constantly asking what would happen if you were to allow felons and/or criminals to use a 3D printer to manufacture a firearm, and what possible legal defenses you may have available, may look dubious to an outside observer. Especially when the scenarios get more specific.
skyfi wrote:instead of worrying so much about what someone MAY POSSIBLY ONE DAY THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY COMMENCING TO TAKE ACTION ABOUT...
So then do you think it's foolish to oppose universal background checks or a federal gun registry on the grounds that the government may possibly one day think about possibly commencing to take action about taking the guns away?
@Dreadclaw69: this is how you use someone's own argument against them.
EDIT: I've said my piece; I don't think there's much need for me to re-iterate my opinion. I'll keep reading though, because who knows, maybe someone will say something amazing that changes my perspective.
Considering that you can make one shot guns after visiting a
hardware store I wouldn't consider this very news worthy.
With some skill you can recreate Sten rifles et al.
Hell, if you have a dremel you can make a 9mm automatic pistol.
Blaggard wrote: Considering that you can make one shot guns after visiting a
hardware store I wouldn't consider this very news worthy.
With some skill you can recreate Sten rifles et al.
Hell, if you have a dremel you can make a 9mm automatic pistol.
exactly what I have been saying all along,
all this chicken little the sky is falling because "now" guns are easy to make is just that, chicken little.
If you are going to ban 3d printers for making cheap, user-dangerous, and ineffective guns, then why is no one crying about metal lathes and CNC machines being on the free market?
the only good reason for banning (civilian) 3d printing is that we cant let the people have a cheap means of producing cheap plastic crap, that would destroy the world economy of making cheap plastic crap.
@Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your printer saying that agree not to print firearms, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)
Scratch all that I wrote here. Above advice is better: Get a real lawyer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: @Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your computer saying that agree not to download kiddie porn or hack into bank accounts, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: @Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your chainsaw saying that agree not to cut down their neighbors trees, decapitate people, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
Pretty much anything you rent probably needs a ton of notarized legal disclaimers with this standard. Lawyers will love it. First thing I'm doing with my 3d printer is making a notary stamp so I can get in on that part of the action.
Blaggard wrote: Considering that you can make one shot guns after visiting a
hardware store I wouldn't consider this very news worthy.
With some skill you can recreate Sten rifles et al.
Hell, if you have a dremel you can make a 9mm automatic pistol.
exactly what I have been saying all along,
all this chicken little the sky is falling because "now" guns are easy to make is just that, chicken little.
If you are going to ban 3d printers for making cheap, user-dangerous, and ineffective guns, then why is no one crying about metal lathes and CNC machines being on the free market?
the only good reason for banning (civilian) 3d printing is that we cant let the people have a cheap means of producing cheap plastic crap, that would destroy the world economy of making cheap plastic crap.
Happy Meal Toys for all!
CNCs are beautiful.
And now back on thread: Didn't whole revolutions and the evolution of warfare with firearms come just because firearms are easy to produce and easy to use? Suddenly things people could do in the 14th century are hard?
Hell, a yew longbow is harder to make but has higher precision, fire rate, range and probably killing power. People can still go online, order the wood and have a go. There's even tutorials on youtube. Heck, there's tutorials for PVC horsebows on youtube. No cries of outrage there.
However I forget one thing, printing pre-designed pieces require no skill. Maybe people without skill are more scary than people with skills?
Per Mom: accident tee hee!
Per Dad: intentional crazy red head. (guess who she ran over)
Gotta watch out for those red heads, fierce temper
skyfi wrote: How is firearms production a dubious enterprise?
I know I laid out a worst-case scenario for my example and it was done for theoretical purposes. I don't typically lend out expensive equipment of mine, and consequently don't think I would lend my 3d printer out based on all the hubb-bub about this.
If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)
Its not, nor did I claim it was. Constantly asking what would happen if you were to allow felons and/or criminals to use a 3D printer to manufacture a firearm, and what possible legal defenses you may have available, may look dubious to an outside observer. Especially when the scenarios get more specific.
I must of mistaken your words here then:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Fair enough. From past experience I've usually found that anyone who asks that many questions about a dubious enterprise is strongly contemplating it/has done it already and wants a way to cover their rear.
I'm not "constantly" asking. I think its a valid topic of discussion regarding 3d printers/3d printing guns specifically and legal ramifications... It's really not the only thing I've contributed to the dialogue, but I do feel like you are trying to paint my honest inquiry in matters of law (which im no expert and hence deferring to the smarter-than-me-fellas at dakka for the purpose of our OT discussion).... Which I truly don't understand?
I just don't see how an interest in the subject of this thread (and it's legal ramifications for producers/consumers and how it will all work out) is an indication of dubious activity unless one wildly speculates...
Could you just not reckon, like I've stated that I own a 3d printer, and was curious of the opinions of others on a hypothetical situation? That maybe I don't want to risk letting someone borrow my printer to build themselves a computer case, or widget or whatever in the off chance they have lied to me and use it for nefarious purposes? I would like to be equipped with the knowledge to protect myself, my capital, and a means of explaining why I won't lend my machine out in the event I'm asked about it and don't want to come off simply like "because it's mine." etc
I however have pointed out that there seems to be a potential for owners of printers to lend/rent them out to people who could then produce a firearm with no serial # for themselves... withstanding they didn't rent it to individuals whom wouldn't qualify to receive a firearm/access to one in the first place.... I didn't say it was the way the truth an the light, or even a good idea. I just said it was a possibility that everyone will have to seemingly deal with, especially people who own a 3d printer. what safeguards could be implemented where you could viably make a biz of renting your printer out while at the same time ensuring you are not arming felons or would be terrorists? There seems to be a place in the market legally for this, currently, although not economically feasible I would argue unless one had a ton of local customers. Again not that i'm saying its a good idea, but I'm trying to figure out what prevents someone from doing this? I'm not so dumb I'm going to risk my biscuit on this sort of thing, but I'm REALLY interested to see what comes of it being a bit of a gun nut, and owning a 3d printer. Just seems logical I would find it interesting!
It got me thinking about what others have said regarding CNC etc... you can easily make metal guns very easily with good machinery like that. So what do people who own CNC machines do? Are they liable for every dumb who rents a machine from them (never heard of someone renting out an entire CNC machine except to a biz) and produces a gun and does something stupid? I doubt it. I doubt unless it was proven that they were privy to the plans of the people who rented the machinery... That same line of thinking, if you own a CNC shop. What if a customer of yours pulled a fast one on you and had you build him some random gizmos over a period of time that you didn't know assembled into a full auto tommy gun, but did? Would the CNC shop owner be at risk? or would the customer have sole liability if something happened as he lied/mis-represented plans to CNC owner who unwittingly built gun?
Could we extend the same logic to walmart, they sold a guy a broom, a nail, and a rubberband, should liability be extended to them if he combines those objects and a shotgun shell and kills someone?
I'm just really curious about how all that interacts and what not!
azazel the cat wrote:
skyfi wrote:instead of worrying so much about what someone MAY POSSIBLY ONE DAY THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY COMMENCING TO TAKE ACTION ABOUT...
So then do you think it's foolish to oppose universal background checks or a federal gun registry on the grounds that the government may possibly one day think about possibly commencing to take action about taking the guns away?
@Dreadclaw69: this is how you use someone's own argument against them.
EDIT: I've said my piece; I don't think there's much need for me to re-iterate my opinion. I'll keep reading though, because who knows, maybe someone will say something amazing that changes my perspective.
Oh come on azaz. I understand why people would want to possibly make another law regarding 3d printers and guns, but I don't agree with it, and have stated why, with how easy it is to build superior weapons already. Just like you have stated your opinion. I also would argue that the federal government (or state for that matter) making lists is can be a bad thing.. Off top of my head last thing I can think of would be medical marijuana patients/users in those states, having applied for a state license, found out they could no longer legally receive/purchase a firearm. Talk about paving a road to hell with good intentions..
I admit though, I wasn't being so serious in regards to what you quoted, but I think you know that already
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:@Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your printer saying that agree not to print firearms, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
agreed, but was curious about the opinions of other dakkanaughts whom I have grown to respect. (not even as if I was planning on doin this as I've stated but you know, wildly speculating/entertaining ideas is all good fun)
SOFDC wrote:
If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)
Scratch all that I wrote here. Above advice is better: Get a real lawyer.
^ sound advice to anyone planning on renting out their 3d printer now that 3d guns are "out"
CptJake wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: @Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your computer saying that agree not to download kiddie porn or hack into bank accounts, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: @Skyfi I would say you get a legal notarized document drawn up with every person who rents your chainsaw saying that agree not to cut down their neighbors trees, decapitate people, engage in illegal activity etc. It won't stop them but it will at least potentially cover your donkey. Over all this is really something that needs to be addressed by a lawyer.
Pretty much anything you rent probably needs a ton of notarized legal disclaimers with this standard. Lawyers will love it. First thing I'm doing with my 3d printer is making a notary stamp so I can get in on that part of the action.
I haven't looked into standard lend/lease legal disclaimers enough to be familiar. I assumed that there existed something like this a 3d printer owner could employ / have signed like kalsih recommended , to protect the owner of said machine from damages caused by someones misuses... It seems legally about the same as if you rented a car to someone and they purposefully ran someone over with it right? You rented them the car to drive, not to commit murder ?
skyfi wrote: I'm not "constantly" asking. I think its a valid topic of discussion regarding 3d printers/3d printing guns specifically and legal ramifications... It's really not the only thing I've contributed to the dialogue, but I do feel like you are trying to paint my honest inquiry in matters of law (which im no expert and hence deferring to the smarter-than-me-fellas at dakka for the purpose of our OT discussion).... Which I truly don't understand?
I just don't see how an interest in the subject of this thread (and it's legal ramifications for producers/consumers and how it will all work out) is an indication of dubious activity unless one wildly speculates...
Could you just not reckon, like I've stated that I own a 3d printer, and was curious of the opinions of others on a hypothetical situation? That maybe I don't want to risk letting someone borrow my printer to build themselves a computer case, or widget or whatever in the off chance they have lied to me and use it for nefarious purposes? I would like to be equipped with the knowledge to protect myself, my capital, and a means of explaining why I won't lend my machine out in the event I'm asked about it and don't want to come off simply like "because it's mine." etc
I however have pointed out that there seems to be a potential for owners of printers to lend/rent them out to people who could then produce a firearm with no serial # for themselves... withstanding they didn't rent it to individuals whom wouldn't qualify to receive a firearm/access to one in the first place.... I didn't say it was the way the truth an the light, or even a good idea. I just said it was a possibility that everyone will have to seemingly deal with, especially people who own a 3d printer. what safeguards could be implemented where you could viably make a biz of renting your printer out while at the same time ensuring you are not arming felons or would be terrorists? There seems to be a place in the market legally for this, currently, although not economically feasible I would argue unless one had a ton of local customers. Again not that i'm saying its a good idea, but I'm trying to figure out what prevents someone from doing this? I'm not so dumb I'm going to risk my biscuit on this sort of thing, but I'm REALLY interested to see what comes of it being a bit of a gun nut, and owning a 3d printer. Just seems logical I would find it interesting!
It got me thinking about what others have said regarding CNC etc... you can easily make metal guns very easily with good machinery like that. So what do people who own CNC machines do? Are they liable for every dumb who rents a machine from them (never heard of someone renting out an entire CNC machine except to a biz) and produces a gun and does something stupid? I doubt it. I doubt unless it was proven that they were privy to the plans of the people who rented the machinery... That same line of thinking, if you own a CNC shop. What if a customer of yours pulled a fast one on you and had you build him some random gizmos over a period of time that you didn't know assembled into a full auto tommy gun, but did? Would the CNC shop owner be at risk? or would the customer have sole liability if something happened as he lied/mis-represented plans to CNC owner who unwittingly built gun?
Could we extend the same logic to walmart, they sold a guy a broom, a nail, and a rubberband, should liability be extended to them if he combines those objects and a shotgun shell and kills someone?
I'm just really curious about how all that interacts and what not!
Don't worry, I'm not saying that you're up to anything nefarious. Its just from my own personal experience when someone starts with what-ifs that get gradually more specific its almost always been more than just intellectual curiosity. They are usually trying to find a way to cover themselves while doing, or because they've done, something shady.
Once again, if you're that curious your best bet may be to consult a suitably qualified attorney who can properly advise you. That way should the worst happen, and I hope it doesn't, and you end up in Court because of someone else's actions a judge will probably have more sympathy for your claims of acting in good faith if you consulted an attorney, instead of people on a website dedicated to miniature war gaming
skyfi wrote:instead of worrying so much about what someone MAY POSSIBLY ONE DAY THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY COMMENCING TO TAKE ACTION ABOUT...
So then do you think it's foolish to oppose universal background checks or a federal gun registry on the grounds that the government may possibly one day think about possibly commencing to take action about taking the guns away?
Oh come on azaz. I understand why people would want to possibly make another law regarding 3d printers and guns, but I don't agree with it, and have stated why, with how easy it is to build superior weapons already. Just like you have stated your opinion. I also would argue that the federal government (or state for that matter) making lists is can be a bad thing.. Off top of my head last thing I can think of would be medical marijuana patients/users in those states, having applied for a state license, found out they could no longer legally receive/purchase a firearm. Talk about paving a road to hell with good intentions..
I admit though, I wasn't being so serious in regards to what you quoted, but I think you know that already
Yeah, pretty much. But I couldn't resist! That fruit wasn't just low-hanging; it was baking itself into a pie.
As to your what-would-happen-if-I-loaned-out-my-printer question, I'm not sure how it would work in the US, but in Canada all that would be required to absolve you of any criminal responsibility would be the test of whether or not a reasonable person would have cause to believe the printer would be used for illegal activities. It would be a very grey area and likely almost impossible to enforce, barring hidden cameras showing your client saying something to the effect of 'oh boy I can't wait to go use your printer for nefarious purposes!'. However, I suspect it is within tort law that you could potentially encounter the most problems.
My advice? Consult a real lawyer on the subject, and immediately stop asking about it on Internet forums. Generally speaking, if you think there's a chance you'll wind up in civil court for a possible negligence-related suit, then you really do not want the plaintiff digging up your previous discussions on said subject.
Well...um....I done some harcore stuff in my life.....took chances with my life....kinda know Death by first name basis......but I have to give serious thought...of squeezing a round off in this tonka toy gun....
Jihadin wrote: Well...um....I done some harcore stuff in my life.....took chances with my life....kinda know Death by first name basis......but I have to give serious thought...of squeezing a round off in this tonka toy gun....
Jihadin wrote: I see no option of these weapons to insert a 30 round clip......
There are people working on Printable AR15s and have a working printed lower receiver and 30 rounds magazines. As this Tech develops so do the materials that are used in it. Currently the most common printing is with resin but there are now printers that use Powered metal and print in full 3d. So given 10 years a lot of people will have these Devices in their house to make many useful items, be it replacement parts for your cars, miniatures for a certain boardgame, unique gun designs, or anything you dream of. These are really wonderful devices.
If you own a printer and someone wants to borrow, just say they can't.
You supervise printing their design in your own shop. Why would you want the hassle of a delicate piece of equipment being slung in a car boot by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly>
You can go to high street shops in the UK and get stuff 3D printed, so it's not like anyone wanting a legitimate service absolutely has to go and borrow someone's machine and take it away with them.
Jihadin wrote: I see no option of these weapons to insert a 30 round clip......
3D printed 30 round (standard capacity) AK magazine.
3D printed AR15 lower receiver.
Their Liberator pistol is just the first design of many. Maybe once these scumbag politicians realize that they can't strip you of your natural right to protect yourself, they will finally let off.
Downloads for 3D-printed Liberator gun reach 100,000
The blueprint used to produce a 3D-printed plastic gun has been downloaded about 100,000 times since going online earlier this week, according to Forbes.
Defense Distributed told the news site it was surprised by the amount of interest its Liberator gun had generated.
Earlier in the week, the company demonstrated the firearm being fired
But even before any more guns come off the DIY printing presses, there are moves afoot to ban it.
Metal detectors
Californian senator Leland Yee said he wanted a law passed to stop the manufacture of 3D-printed guns.
"I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check," he said in a statement.
According to Defense Distributed, most of the 100,000 downloads have been in the US, followed by Spain, Brazil, Germany and the UK.
The blueprint has also been uploaded to file-sharing site the Pirate Bay, where it has become the most popular file in the site's 3D-printing category.
Firing pin
It took Defense Distributed eight months to produce the firearm, which was assembled from separate components produced on an $8,000 (£5,000) 3D printer bought from auction site eBay.
While downloading the blueprints may not be illegal, owning a firearm is, according to the UK's Metropolitan Police.
"To actually manufacture any type of firearm in the UK, you have to be a registered firearms dealer (RFD)," it said in a statement.
"Therefore, unless you are an RFD, it would most definitely be an offence to make a gun using the blueprints. It may be legal for an RFD to manufacture a gun this way, as long as they had the necessary authorities."
One of the biggest headaches for law enforcers is the fact the gun is made from plastic - with only the firing pin made from metal.
New York congressmen Steve Israel and Chuck Schumer have sponsored legislation aimed at adding a 3D-printing provision to the US Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires all guns to be detectable.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you own a printer and someone wants to borrow, just say they can't.
You supervise printing their design in your own shop. Why would you want the hassle of a delicate piece of equipment being slung in a car boot by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly>
You can go to high street shops in the UK and get stuff 3D printed, so it's not like anyone wanting a legitimate service absolutely has to go and borrow someone's machine and take it away with them.
My point is that here seems to exist a legal grey area in which people could get guns with no serial #s for potentially nefarious activity by simply having a clean record, renting or borrowing a machine.. Etc
Guy A in criminal org prints his toys, hands it down to guy b to produce all his toys, then to guy c and so on.
In reality though the plastic weapons produced here isn't going to be the most interesting part. I'm more interested in see how people may print compknents, mold them in sand, then make Metal castings of those parts to make something more reliable/capable than a plastic one shot gun.
Again, I'm not "oh my goose the sky is falling"... I'm betting that will all get used by peaceful people actually buding motors in their garage etc as opposed to criminals printing and casting metal gun parts?
Someone could always just go down to a 3d shop and have their stuff printed. Without patents, legal protection etc (even in a signed agreement regarding their project with you) some people may be wary of havin a potentially million dollar idea stole. By some print shop employee who could copy their files, print more prototypes etc.
I realize you can have artwork predating your patent/copywrite date and use that as evidence as long as I will stand up in court... There's a site about the lawsuit vs George Lucas over the walker designs in star war..
Not that people worried about copyright/patent are the normal customer, but I imagine enough of them may be that a "rent my printer" business could be viable to some degree (seemingly)... Though
Again plentiful local customers would be a must.
There are oil and gas companies with delicate equipment they rent for 300$/day and require you provide a operator to be trained 1 day. They even rent out a duplicate machine in case the one you have malfunctions, etc. with insurance on their machines customers are paying for...
So while it may currently may no. Be economical to rent 3e printers but in time, I think you'll see biz renting them out.. (Ill put on my predicting hat here and say I think them being leased/rented out will happen just before the printers hit price point to be marketable to most end consumers who have demand)
skyfi wrote: My point is that here seems to exist a legal grey area in which people could get guns with no serial #s for potentially nefarious activity by simply having a clean record, renting or borrowing a machine.. Etc
And right now the same guy with a clean record can use a lathe and other tools to make a gun without a serial number, or go out and purchase a gun with a serial number. That does NOT mean there is a 'legal grey area'. It just means that
1. Guns can be made.
2. Guys with clean records can buy guns.
It is most likely illegal to use these guns for 'nefarious activity' depending on your definition of 'nefarious activity'.
skyfi wrote: My point is that here seems to exist a legal grey area in which people could get guns with no serial #s for potentially nefarious activity by simply having a clean record, renting or borrowing a machine.. Etc
And right now the same guy with a clean record can use a lathe and other tools to make a gun without a serial number, or go out and purchase a gun with a serial number. That does NOT mean there is a 'legal grey area'. It just means that
1. Guns can be made. 2. Guys with clean records can buy guns.
It is most likely illegal to use these guns for 'nefarious activity' depending on your definition of 'nefarious activity'.
They "gray area" im describing is in regards to liability to renting your machine out to someone who you unknowingly had plans to commit murder, robbery, etc. It seems like the same sort of liability that a lease agreement may protect the printer owner from as described above in the thread (in regards to renting a car, CNC machinery etc)
"gray area" might not be the most appropriate terminology.
I have also pointed out the same as you about the lathe, because its absolutely true. I'm a big supporter of the 3d guns, for sake of innovation alone. Manufacturing techniques could be improved by merely getting more people involved in "how its made" and thinking about the problems/solutions. (and widely applicable to all mechanical design in future not exclusive to firearms)
I'm not advocating for any new legislation, I'm merely pointing out a fact that people need to take into consideration (for instance if you are thinking of buying a 3d printer, maybe not lend it out to anyone.. and if you are to get a legal agreement drawn up to protect yourself etc..
like others have said unless you're caught on camera/recording talking to a customer who says "oh i can't wait to go print me a gun to rob 7-11!" and you reply "oh yeah, this 3d printer will really help with that!" it seems that proving the printer-owner was knowledgeable/liable would be difficult, especially if they had a rental agreement prohibiting the renter from using the gun to create anything with the intent of violating any laws etc. in which case that's just a cover-yo-butt move and I'm still really curious how all of this will play out. Especially in regards to the legislation already being drafted up.
Its all quite entertaining to me to watch it unfold. just one of those *pulls up a chair and grabs popcorn* types-o-things.
Do you think folks that have machine shops in their garage need to pay lawyers for legal advice now lest someone make something that could possibly be used illegally? How about those that sell those tools?
If you operate a print shop -- like The Colour Company in central London -- where people can walk and make copies and prints. You probably already have a terms and conditions that informs customers they are not allowed to print illegal things. This would be easily extended to 3D copies, if it wouldn't already cover them from general terms.
I want you to very carefully read through the point-counterpoint of our dialogue here, so that you can actually see where you have erred.
We are not discussing the constitutionality of firearms; you are making a comparison of firearms to vehicles, which is incorrect on its face.
Your claim about a non-liability contract in reference to a rental car offers a reasonable degree of certainty that the rental applicant possesses the knowledge and skill to use the rented device (a car) properly, by virtue of the licensing program. This cannot be said for a firearms-making-device, by virtue that firearms training is not mandatory, and thus that level of protection against negligence on the part of the rental agency is not present as it is for car rental services.
purplefood wrote: Cat has a point... Incidentally would that many people necessarily object to a mandatory firearms training course in order to get a weapons licence?
Fairly certain that no one would disagree to such a thing, too bad it probably won't see its way into a bill like that...
Edit: And in most cases of concealed carry permits/licenses you must go through a training safety course.
I fail to see how being licensed vs not makes the comparison irrelevant. in either case, a person can legally get either the printer or the car and use them for an illegal purpose. And in neither case can the renter be held responsible for what occurs during the rental period as they have no control over the actions of the person renting the equipment.
Given that its very very easy to get a license to drive a car, and the majority of people have a license, it is fair to assume that a person will have a license standard. Similar to assuming they have their full constitutional rights. It may not be a 100% perfect comparison, but it is safe to assume most people would be able to rent a vehicle as well as rent a 3-D printer.
purplefood wrote:Cat has a point...
Incidentally would that many people necessarily object to a mandatory firearms training course in order to get a weapons licence?
This is truthfully the only thing that I really want to see (licensing paired, of course, with a universal background check), and there are a great many people who are opposed to this.
Grey Templar wrote:I fail to see how being licensed vs not makes the comparison irrelevant. in either case, a person can legally get either the printer or the car and use them for an illegal purpose. And in neither case can the renter be held responsible for what occurs during the rental period as they have no control over the actions of the person renting the equipment.
Given that its very very easy to get a license to drive a car, and the majority of people have a license, it is fair to assume that a person will have a license standard. Similar to assuming they have their full constitutional rights. It may not be a 100% perfect comparison, but it is safe to assume most people would be able to rent a vehicle as well as rent a 3-D printer.
Now you are making a version of the prosecutor's fallacy. The majority of people are over 21, but yet it is still necessary to confirm such before selling alcohol; same applies to a driver's license. As liability is in part based on the rental applicant possessing such, the mere assumption will never be substituted for confirmation. Since it is very reasonable to believe that negligence would come into play in the event that a firearm-printing-device were rented to someone who does not still retain the constitutional right to obtain firearms, it thus stands to reason that mere assumption of this would not protect the rental agency's liability then, either.
What if you with a driving licence rent the car or 3D printer then lend it to a friend without a licence to ram raid a bank or make an illegal gun.
It's plainly obvious that the original owner of the equipment is not responsible. His contract with you most likely disallows you from lending on the equipment
This cannot be said for a firearms-making-device, by virtue that firearms training is not mandatory, and thus that level of protection against negligence on the part of the rental agency is not present as it is for car rental services.
I am not sure where you are going with this, or if I even understand the above statement. It's no different than saying "Well, you should have all the permits and paperwork to operate aircraft because you could theoretically start building one with the tools you are renting." ....which is a bit ridiculous. If you required someone to be permitted to be the end user of ANYTHING they could possibly make on a tool before allowing them to use it...well...you won't be in business very long.
Unless we are directly comparing firearms to cars again (Which I notice is only an appropriate comparison when the anti-side is bringing it up, specifically in terms of licensing)....Which is still not a very good comparison, seeing as the "You need a license!" argument falls on its face once someone points out that you need no license to purchase, or even register a vehicle in most places in the US. You must have a license when you want to take it off your property and into the wild blue public. Kinda like you do with a loaded gun in most of the US.
I highly recommend reading the entire context and post, rather than cherrypicking a snippet out of context for the purposes of creating a red herring. kthanx
Apparently US DOJ has ordered defense distributed to remove downloads for the liberator pistol due to possible ITAR violations. It may be back, but with anyone with an outside US IP barred from accessing the material, or may not be back at all.
Jihadin wrote: Those plastic magazines, lower reciever of AR15...and the Tonka Toy Gun.....I've trust metal more so over plastic due to wear and tear.
Oh, come now. Polymer ("plastic") guns have been doing just fine for a long time now. With Glocks especially, it's usually the steel that wears out before the polymer.
LOL never took a Glock into combat....just thatPoS 9mm Beratta....which I only used once....on a freaking Camelspider.......it was a big camel spider..I still have mags from my first deployment which I've grown attach to..
Automatically Appended Next Post: That and rewatching Babylon 5 for like the 20th time....
Jihadin wrote: Those plastic magazines, lower reciever of AR15...and the Tonka Toy Gun.....I've trust metal more so over plastic due to wear and tear.
Oh, come now. Polymer ("plastic") guns have been doing just fine for a long time now. With Glocks especially, it's usually the steel that wears out before the polymer.
yes, plastic guns have been around for a while,
but i would disagree with the metal wearing out first, i definetly notice more wear on the plastic bits of my pistol, but at 10k rounds, wear consists of "doesnt look like brand new anymore"
where as the metal bits look brand new when I polish em up
either way,
people who are scared of this plastic gun are misinformed, and are afraid of nothing... simpler/cheaper technology already exisits that makes better firearms
Jihadin wrote: Those plastic magazines, lower reciever of AR15...and the Tonka Toy Gun.....I've trust metal more so over plastic due to wear and tear.
Oh, come now. Polymer ("plastic") guns have been doing just fine for a long time now. With Glocks especially, it's usually the steel that wears out before the polymer.
I would guess that's because the metal is whats taking most of the strain. Have a plastic chamber and barrel and see how fast that wears out.
Grey Templar wrote: I would guess that's because the metal is whats taking most of the strain. Have a plastic chamber and barrel and see how fast that wears out.
Put that challenge to the Germans or the Austrians and I bet we'll see some magic.
Grey Templar wrote: I would guess that's because the metal is whats taking most of the strain. Have a plastic chamber and barrel and see how fast that wears out.
Put that challenge to the Germans or the Austrians and I bet we'll see some magic.
Physics is a new thing to you isn't it? The receiver on a Glock and similar handguns are plastic because they don't actually handle any stress. This little plastic liberator doohickey only survives because it uses and extremely low power round. And even then, they have a bunch of replacement barrels on hand for it for a reason. Hell the photos they showed on the announcement news article had a broken trigger.
Also the Liberator files are already on pirate bay.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Physics is a new thing to you isn't it? The receiver on a Glock and similar handguns are plastic because they don't actually handle any stress. This little plastic liberator doohickey only survives because it uses and extremely low power round. And even then, they have a bunch of replacement barrels on hand for it for a reason. Hell the photos they showed on the announcement news article had a broken trigger.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure we'll never have composite barrels in handguns. Steel, after all, is the STRONGEST SUBSTANCE KNOWN TO MAN.
And computers are always going to be the size of a room.
No way that plastic will keep up in a sustain fire fight. Granted I even won't butt struck a insurgent with my collasiple butstock on my M4.....perfer the barrell...but trying to explain how I busted the butt to avoid a statement of charges would get interesting inside joke
I want you to very carefully read through the point-counterpoint of our dialogue here, so that you can actually see where you have erred.
We are not discussing the constitutionality of firearms; you are making a comparison of firearms to vehicles, which is incorrect on its face.
Your claim about a non-liability contract in reference to a rental car offers a reasonable degree of certainty that the rental applicant possesses the knowledge and skill to use the rented device (a car) properly, by virtue of the licensing program. This cannot be said for a firearms-making-device, by virtue that firearms training is not mandatory, and thus that level of protection against negligence on the part of the rental agency is not present as it is for car rental services.
Bullockist wrote:Stop making sense cat, it's not what OT is about.
Sorry. I'll try to use some inflammatory hyperbole, strawmen, shotgun and kettle logic next time. Maybe even throw in some red herrings beause pineapples are delicious.
EDIT: I just noticed that in the Ignoratio Elenchi wikipedia link I posted, it actually references the Chewbacca Defense. And that's awesome.
I'm not saying composite barrels and the like can't happen, but the tech as is now? There's faster and less painful ways to fill yourself with shrapnel if that's your desire.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm not saying composite barrels and the like can't happen, but the tech as is now? There's faster and less painful ways to fill yourself with shrapnel if that's your desire.
Shouldn't filling yourself with shrapnel be painful though?
DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.
It's all over the net already, something like 100k downloads off defcad before the feds shut it down and it's got multiple files on pirate bay and other like websites.
I would say the box got opened when the internet was invented. We'll still be finding boxes that got opened by that simple invention hundreds of years from now.
For those poo pooing this device: while Jihadin is absolutely correct about it's functionality in a sustained firefight, it works great for target practice and as an easily concealed weapon if you use slightly different ingredients, meaning put in plastic and ceramic parts instead of steel. Without the steel in it, it does not set off mad detectors.
Great in a long fire fight: no. Good as a sudden surprise... well...
BaronIveagh wrote: For those poo pooing this device: while Jihadin is absolutely correct about it's functionality in a sustained firefight, it works great for target practice and as an easily concealed weapon if you use slightly different ingredients, meaning put in plastic and ceramic parts instead of steel. Without the steel in it, it does not set off mad detectors.
Have you shot with it? I'm curious as to its accuracy and whether there is any rifling on it as that isn't something that that report in the opening post covers.
I think that the topic of the detectability of the firearm, and the legal ramifications, was addressed earlier in the thread too.
Have you shot with it? I'm curious as to its accuracy and whether there is any rifling on it as that isn't something that that report in the opening post covers.
I think that the topic of the detectability of the firearm, and the legal ramifications, was addressed earlier in the thread too.
I have not, a friend of mine I trust has and we tested it against the Casino's metal detectors and passed right through (though security knew what we were about and OKed it. I think they wanted to know if it would work as well). He said it's comparable to a smooth bore derringer as far as accuracy goes.
tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.
Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.
Practically that may be the case. Legally however I'd refer you to Page 4,
While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?
Practically that may be the case. Legally however I'd refer you to Page 4,
While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?
Aren't your words right here the crux of the anti-gun ban people's argument?
BaronIveagh wrote: While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?
Not the argument that I was making. I've been pretty consistent in saying that criminals don't often care to follow laws. Its a career hazard
What I was trying to do though was share information with you that you may not have been aware of for you own, and your friend's sake, as you claimed your friend had made a firearm this way and you were counselling on replacing the metal with ceramic to frustrate efforts at detection.
BaronIveagh wrote: While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?
Not the argument that I was making. I've been pretty consistent in saying that criminals don't often care to follow laws. Its a career hazard
What I was trying to do though was share information with you that you may not have been aware of for you own, and your friend's sake, as you claimed your friend had made a firearm this way and you were counselling on replacing the metal with ceramic to frustrate efforts at detection.
Yeah, I had him melt it. Another nice thing about these: if you do use one for a crime, they're very easily disposed of.
I know guns get recovered sometimes, but not always.
Not entirely sure, can't find any numbers specifically for guns that got tossed in the US. Probably depends on how much forethought the criminal puts into it.
As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?
As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?
As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?
Destroy identifying marks? Not even remotely close. It would have an effect on par with applying lip gloss in hopes of being unrecognizable in a photo.
+1
will when the "loot" is more than the cost required to produce a one-use-gun for the job to be discarded afterwards. Even if you print 3 of them. They aint going to cost 50 pounds either. I seriously doubt that. I think that is a very liberal estimate once these become more mainstream.
