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.

Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315094/Undetectable-Firearms-Act-of-1988

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.

 kronk wrote:

 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.

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."

That sounds like a scary future to me.

CptJake wrote:

 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?

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...

 Fezman wrote:

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."

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:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315094/Undetectable-Firearms-Act-of-1988

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.

Thank you for the link

I don't see why 3D printed weapons are a problem when it is so easy to get hold of much better real weapons.

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?

 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.

In this case, because they violate the laws against undetectable (or difficult to detect) firearms.

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 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.

daedalus wrote:

 Fezman wrote:

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."

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."

edit: added source: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

 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)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

I also don't favor guns being printed. I do however favor rocket propelled chainsaws being printed. Would that be ok under the Dreadclaw dictate?

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Fezman wrote:

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."

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.

 Fezman wrote:


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.

 daedalus wrote:

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...

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You should point out those "holes", or else not claim it.

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.