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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22464360

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)


-skyler

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'.

 CptJake wrote:

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?

You are making up an issue that does not exist.

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.

Yeah, a standard non-liability contract regarding the use of the machine should cover anyone renting these out.

Its no different than someone getting a rental car to use in a bank heist.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, a standard non-liability contract regarding the use of the machine should cover anyone renting these out.

Its no different than someone getting a rental car to use in a bank heist.

Except a rental car requires a valid license first.

And?

Cars are not a constitutional right.

Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, a standard non-liability contract regarding the use of the machine should cover anyone renting these out.

Its no different than someone getting a rental car to use in a bank heist.

Except a rental car requires a valid license first.

And?

Cars are not a constitutional right.

Please stop making this statement in response to criticisms related not to the constitutionality of firearms, but to your faulty argument.

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.

Cat has a point...
Incidentally would that many people necessarily object to a mandatory firearms training course in order to get a weapons licence?

 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.

It does seem fairly reasonable.
At the very least it should be put in place for some of the more... lethal weapons.

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.

Which is why I said there would be a non-liability contract. As there is with most rentals.

This is a silly argument really.

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

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.

UDPATE:

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....

 Valion wrote:

 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

 Valion wrote:

 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.

 Valion wrote:

 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.

Can't stop the signal Mal.

 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.

Before we go out of hand with this. I might change my mind if it combat proven.

 Jihadin wrote:
Before we go out of hand with this. I might change my mind if it combat proven.

What, polymer guns in general or polymer barrels? Because various JSOC guys have been running Glocks for a decade now.