Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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?

skyfi wrote:

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?

 Easy E wrote:

skyfi wrote:

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.

This 3D gun is not the problem, nor will it be.

Pfft..3D guns are for wussies. I want a 4D gun!

I prefer 38Ds, but there you go.

An excellent point.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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."

from forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/

"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.

 kronk wrote:
I prefer 38Ds, but there you go.

And they aren't likely to go off in your hand while you play with them, unlike other things

Edit: a bit crude. Sorry.

kronk wrote:I prefer 38Ds, but there you go.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I prefer 38Ds, but there you go.

And they aren't likely to go off in your hand while you play with them, unlike other things

kronk wrote:Edit: a bit crude. Sorry.

/thread

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7%C3%9728mm

Dreadclaw69 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.


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.

 Easy E wrote:

skyfi wrote:

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.

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.

 Valion wrote:

 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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7%C3%9728mm

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.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can 3D print cordite?

You can 3D print living cells. I'm pretty sure they can manage printing cordite with a little research.

It's not quite that simple. No-one actually prints living cells like a photocopier.

And why print cordite? Why not just make it?

 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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Perhaps in a decade we can get to the real solution for gun violence.

Moar GUnz!1!!!!111!!!

 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:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 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.

Sensible. I'm for it.