'Wiki Weapon Project' Wants Your 3D-Printable Guns

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Earlier this month, University of Texas law student Cody Wilson and a small group of friends who call themselves 'Defense Distributed' launched an initiative they've dubbed the 'Wiki Weapon Project.' Their goal: to raise $20,000 to design and release blueprints for the world's first entirely 3D-printable gun. If all goes according to plan, RepRap users will soon be able to turn the project's CAD designs into an operational firearm capable of shooting at least one standard .22 caliber bullet, all in the privacy of their own garage. Wilson and his handful of collaborators at Defense Distributed plan to use the money they raise to buy or rent a $10,000 Stratysys 3D printer and also to hold a 3D-printable gun design contest with a $1,000 or $2,000 prize for the winning entry — Wilson says they've already received gun design ideas from fans in Arkansas and North Carolina. Once the group has successfully built a reliable 3D-printed gun with the Stratysys printer, it plans to adapt the design for the cheaper and more widely distributed Reprap model. The group had already raised more than $2,000 through the fundraising platform Indiegogo, but the site took down their page and froze their funds on Tuesday. They're continuing to seek donations through their website via Paypal and Bitcoin."

Comments

Strong enough plastics?

[cfvgcfvg]

I would think the limiting factor would be the strength of the plastic and not the design itself.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Baloroth]

That was my thought as well, although someone claimed they were able to print out a receiver for an AR-15 and fire a few hundred rounds without noticeable wear. Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing. I don't think making the entire thing of plastic is very practical, and might not even be possible for most gun designs (anything that requires a spring, for example, won't work).

OTOH if you could, it would give you a weapon undetectable by normal metal detectors. The bullet and casing would be metal still, but you could probably get around that.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[jxander]

That's entirely the point: designing ways to compensate for the weakness of plastic.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

The reciever is just the component that holds all the other components. The trick is to print the items that take direct impact or heat, like the barrel or the firing pin.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

Agreed. If the plastic firing pin can trigger the primer, the overpressure doesn't blow the chamber and the breech apart, and the rifling doesn't transition to smoothbore after the first round, it might be worth it. But you need stronger plastics for that, and that may be past the printer's ability to liquefy and print.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[mspohr]

I would think the limiting factor would be stupidity of the user.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[davidc]

I forsee many shot-out eyes...

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[SuricouRaven]

Or you could design a multi-barrel zip-gun. Four barrels, four bullets. Four shots, and the gun is destroyed. Or you could design it to use something commonly available as a barrel, like a particular size of standardised plumbing pipe.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Dunbal]

I doubt very much you will get rifling at all. The momentum of the bullet is probably far greater than the force needed to shear off any plastic rifling. Not to mention that it's probably an advantage to make the barrel's bore a little larger (gun barrels are actually slightly narrower than the bullets that go in them and they deform the bullet as it passes along) so that you don't get as much gas pressure which would tear the gun apart. Makes for a much slower bullet but the object was to shoot (without killing yourself), not to be accurate or have a fast muzzle velocity.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[mjr167]

You don't necessarily need rifling. It helps, but people made guns that worked just fine without it for quite some time.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[retep]

Keep in mind that in some cases you can use the 3d printer to make the tools needed to make the parts, rather than directly making the parts themselves. For instance barrels need to be made out of metal, yet a 3d printer could still make a jig, essentially a purpose built machining tool, that would give you the ability to make the barrel without purchasing a lot of expensive equipment. Even simple stuff like cutting templates can be a huge time-saver compared to machining parts manually.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[tibit]

The plastic could be reinforced with an additive, like perhaps glass fibers. What's also important is that plastic mix may be designed to ablate instead of melting. Ablation takes more heat away per unit volume than melting. It'd wear out as it's heated up, instead of just melting away. Sure thermal management becomes very important on such a design, and you do need to do some finite element thermal and mechanical modeling before anything gets manufactured. To mechanically withstand the stresses, all it takes it to throw enough plastic at the problem, as long as said plastic doesn't deform "too much". It'll be probably necessary to have a statically underbored design, with smallest bore diameter closest to the shell. If you measure it, the bullet "won't" pass through the bore. But in presence of the hot gas, it'll stretch to correct geometry. The gas pressure will be highest at the rear of the barrel, thus you'll want it most underbored right there. This is a similar approach to modeling the machining stresses and passing a deformed shape to the CNC mill such that it will acquire correct shape when machined under presence of hold-down and cutter stresses.

You could probably do something funny with hot gas scavenging, perhaps trading off some of the bullet's kinetic energy to suck some cool air into the barrel to cool it off.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Nimey]

That's the lower receiver on an AR which is legally the gun. The lower doesn't have the chamber (the upper receiver does), so it doesn't have to be particularly strong.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Broken scope]

From what I can tell, a rifled barrel is the most difficult part of the gun to manufacture, the machines used for it are expensive as hell and the process is time consuming.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[darkmeridian]

Under American law, those parts can be purchased relatively easily. It is the "receiver" that is considered the firearm for regulation purposes.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

It's also a legal requirement for any sort of handgun. If it's not rifled, it's legally classed as a short-barreled shotgun, which is much more difficult (in some jurisdictions, outright impossible) to own legally. An SBS is any smoothbore device with a barrel length (measured from the face of the closed bolt to the muzzle) less than 18", or a total overall length less than 26."

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[argStyopa]

IIRC my understanding is that what was printed was the LOWER receiver.
The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

So no, at least with my understanding of the plastics available for 3d printing, nobody's actually going to making a "gun" with a 3d printer. The MINIMUM breach pressure (.22 rimfire handgun cartridge, barely more than a bb gun) is 21000 psi or about 1500 bar. Real guns start at 40-50,000 psi or 3000-3500 bar (most sporting handgun/rifle cartridges).

OK yes, it would be possible to build a "gun" with a thick enough barrel that it might withstand the pressures, but it would be more akin to a wooden cannon, and I wouldn't want to be near it for the 2nd or 3rd firings...

Anyone know more about the plastics in the printers?

But then "someone printed parts that could be attached to a gun" isn't a very exciting headline, I understand.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[firex726]

But don't they do that with special ceramics?
I don't see how the plastic could withstand the stresses and heat of a gun being fired repeatedly.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Fallingcow]

Could you use ordinary modern ammunition in a smoothbore, or would the shape of the bullet cause excessive tumbling and inaccuracy? Seems to me they might have to use powder+ball in these things, if there's no rifling.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the whole idea is to build weapons using a 3D printer, not necessarily guns.

So, if you print a gun with those materials, you'll maybe get a couple of shots before it blows in your hand, but if you build something else, designed differently, with those specific materials in mind you'll get different, maybe better results.

I think spies and convicts have the most interesting weapons considering the materials and requirements imposed on them.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Shompol]

You mean like this one?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Mr. Esterhouse]

Rifling helps out a lot more than you know. Sure they worked in the past but they were not accurate at all. You can shoot at something 20 ft away and miss the target by a mile.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[firex726]

It sounds like they mean to print the entire gun, not the tools needed to make the gun.

The pic on the article is clearly of the actual weapon, not the tools to make one out of traditional materials.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Dekker3D]

Most people who would print their own guns would probably be in it to avoid gun laws anyway.. They wouldn't care whether it's one level of illegal or another.

Though to the few who would do it just for the design considerations.. dunno. You're right, it would hold them back.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[camperdave]

A barrel can be rifled and still be of slightly larger diameter than the bullet. As far as the law is concerned, it's rifled. As far as the physics of the bullet, it's smooth bored.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ColdWetDog]

Might as well just throw the bullet at the target at that point....

Yell BANG!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK

Wrong.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

If the aim is to shoot, we can stick to rubber bands. I think the aim here is to have a workable gun: accurate within reasonable limits (say, 75-100 meters), and lethal, or the very least, damaging. A tumbling bullet is not accurate, and likely slows down enough to be non-lethal even.

If these criteria are not met, I see absolutely no point in a printable gun. If they are, they can be a great tool for national defense militias: a network of such printers could churn out these low-grade weapons quickly and cheaply, arming militias and citizens to kill their attackers and likely take their weapon. In a sense, it could be an evolved, more usable version of the Liberator, that can potentially double as a backup weapon even after its initial use.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ColdWetDog]

It's a lathe. You don't need a particularly fancy one if you're just going to make a .22 short barreled gun.

For a 30-06 target rifle, yeah, they get expensive.

I have no idea why you would want to print out a plastic jig to make a barrel. You can get hobby lathes that will do the trick (again for a small, low pressure gun) for a couple of hundred dollars. Then you could even use metal!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Baloroth]

Oops, missed the "lower" bit when I was skimming TFA. However, according to wikipedia only the "serialized" receiver (lower for the AR-15) is the "gun" in US law for guns that have multi-part receivers, so you would still get around the legal difficulty of purchasing an AR-15 (not that they are terribly difficult to find, in any case). But I agree, you won't have people printing complete plastic guns anytime soon: even if plastic could be strong enough, the kind you use in a RepRap certainly isn't. It tends to have a very low melting point, for one, which is obviously not a good thing in a gun. You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[burne]

The 'plastic' in your shopping bag is essentially the same material used to make bullet proof vests. (low density polyethylene versus Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene).

Then again, most 3D printers use ABS wire because it hardly degrades in multiple melting cycles.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

Correct. But also under law it is legal to build your own unregistered reciever as long as it is not for distribution or sale.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[X0563511]

No, not like that. More like this, but single-use.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[cffrost]

Rifling helps out a lot more than you know. Sure they worked in the past but they were not accurate at all. You can shoot at something 20 ft away and miss the target by a mile.

Only if you're firing a smoothbore that can land a bullet 5,260+ feet from where you're standing. ;o)

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[therealkevinkretz]

What law is that?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Broken scope]

A lathe might work for a pistol, but for any rifle that uses a modern cartridge with modern powders, a lathe isn't going to cut it.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[X0563511]

It's the lower which is considered the gun:

1. Because this is where fun stuff like pistol grips are
2. Because this is where the S/N of the gun needs to be

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[X0563511]

(which doesn't line up with my own rifle, oddly - the S/N is stamped into the outside of the barrel and there's nothing I can see on the rest of the gun)

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've frequently heard the same, and I think it has to do with ATF definitions. Recommendations have always been to serial number the part and do up paperwork for it so you're not accused of having removed a serial number from a firearm, which will get you in very hot water. Possession of a receiver without a serial has been considered prima facie evidence of a felony.

After that, the only legal way to transfer the firearm is to will it to someone and die. You can't gift or sell it to your neighbor.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[drkim]

There are already 3D printers that do ceramics. Saw a vendor at SIGGRAPH.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

You only have to serialize a weapon if it's for sale. You cant build a weapon that is illegal by its nature (machinegun, mortar, etc.). But you dont have to register something you dont plan to sell or distribute.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[mjr167]

No rifling would lead to high inaccuracy, but it would still work. It has nothing to do with the shape of the bullet. The rifling causes the bullet to spin which allows it to travel in a streighter line.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[X0563511]

Note they want "an operational firearm capable of shooting at least one standard .22 caliber bullet"

That means a single shot disposable firearm would fit the bill.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anon-Admin]

AR-15 receiver #1
SN: BATFSUCK5

AR-15 receiver #2
SN: B1TEMEATF

There is no regulation to what you make the serial number on a receiver you build your self. Hell you could make the SN:00000000.000000009 for all it matters

Also note that someone can make it and finish it up to 80% then sell it to you and you do the last 20%

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[cawpin]

Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing.

First, you aren't circumventing any regulations; you are allowed to build a firearm for yourself with no licensing. Second, correct, no other part of a firearm is regulated.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[GodInHell]

I which states now? There isn't a ton of federal law to worry about in the U.S., it's mostly state laws that screw you up.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

just use the plastic positive to create a mold and cast the parts in steel. just because you print in plastic doesn't mean you have to fabricate in plastic

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said it had to be additive manufacturing or use plastics? CNC milling can do it already using solid blocks of material. As long as the shavings are collected, it should be possible to minimize material use. What does bar stock look like to you?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[drkim]

I would think the limiting factor would be the strength of the plastic and not the design itself.

It doesn't have to be plastic.

I saw a company at SIGGRAPH that's already 3D printing in ceramic, stainless steel and 'Alumide' (a nylon plastic filled with aluminum dust).

A stainless steel and ceramic gun would hold up just fine.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[roman_mir]

4 barrels? Why 4?

How about 100 by 100 barrels, for a total of 10,000, all placed on a single wearable vest, bullets preloaded, the barrels shut with thin paper, bullets fired electrically?

I think I like the idea.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[cawpin]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing "Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]" Therefor, as long as you are building your own gun and it doesn't fit the definition of non-sporting semi-auto rifle or non-sporting shotgun (both of which are fairly narrow) and you aren't using restricted imported parts, you can build any firearm you want as long as it also doesn't fit the definition of an NFA firearm (machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, etc.)

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Smidge204]

If you just want to build weapons in general, it would be absolutely trivial to make an effective stabbing weapon with a 3D printer. You cold even make one out of water-soluble PVA plastic and dump it in the river when you're done!

But the very idea of using a 3D printer to make weapons is ridiculous. People have been making purpose-built weapons for at least three hundred thousand years now. Some of the tools you'd need to make a 3D printer are themselves more lethal than anything you could print. They are not at all ideal for self-sustainability since you need a lot of other resources to build and operate them. Anyone who has the motivation, time and resources to make a 3D printer for weapon making would be a complete idiot to not use those resources to make cheaper, better weapons instead.
=Smidge=

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up. There is a difference between printing sub components of a weapon and actually "printing a gun." Even if somehow you magically print a barrel, the weapon's accuracy is going to suck. Furthermore, things like the action still require a high level of precision and durability.

I think the project is neat, but "printing a gun" with any quality and accuracy is absolutely not achievable with this project. At least not today.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Orga]

I think you're wrong about most people doing this to avoid gun laws. Most people wanting to avoid gun laws don't have 1000's of dollars to spare and the time to spend on this, it's much easier to attain a firearm through other means.

I think a lot of people are interested in this because it's potentially taking power away from government regulation and handing it back to the people.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[mhajicek]

3/4" black iron plumbing pipe is a perfect fit for 12 gauge shells.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[coldsalmon]

...capable of shooting at least one standard .22 caliber bullet...

Even if the gun explodes, you'll still get off at least one round.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

I'm pretty sure there will still be a lathe involved. It will just be followed up with heat treatment, then a final ream, then rifling (both on a lathe), then chroming.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law of "they live in motherfucking america, home of the free range weapons, land of the brave enough to play with explosive toys made from plastic in their garage."

Also known as "where the rest of the world gets their slapstick humour from."

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just not true; the law defines SBSes as a subset of shotguns, which are in turn defines as weapons designed or manufactured to be fired from the shoulder. A smoothbore handgun-like object is either an AOW or SBR if it's concealable (defined as 26" or shorter overall), or a firearm not fitting into the named class if it's larger.

While this may seem a distinction without a difference, there's quite a few pistol-gripped shotgun-like firearms with sub-18" barrels being produced these days, and I can see the logic in designing a smoothbore 22 in the same mold, ostensibly to be fired two-handed like a combat shotgun, and leave it to the makers' discretion if they'd like to cut it down to pistol-length (thus making an AOW or SBR -- perfectly legal, if you have done the right paperwork), or make the less-restricted full-length version.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Charliemopps]

When I was a kid, we'd take .22 rounds, drill a hole in a board, shove them in and then set them off with a rock. We could shoot dozens of rounds like this with no noticeble damage to the wood. .22 rounds load is very small. Firing a single round is nothing. What generates heat is the rate of fire. To fire more, I like the idea I saw above about having rotating barrels. If you basically made a revolver where it actually rotated the barrel as well, so you had a fresh barrel every time you fired, you shouldn't have a problem. You could even fire a .50 caliber from plastic if you made the barrel thick enough. I'm not sure you could fire it twice however.

The real problem will be the firing pin. I think this will have to be some sort of metal, stone or ceramic. I doubt that any kind of plastic that will melt at reasonable enough temperatures to work in a 3D printer would be workable for a firing pin.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counter-intuitively in this case you are incorrect. The lower receiver in an AR is the legally registered "firearm" you can buy uppers through the mail and get them shipped to your house.

Makes no sense to me but that's the rules in the US.

The firing pin might be the hardest part to make. One of the segments in a "standard" FM antennae works beautifully as an unrifled .22 barrel.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

For many years USCG approved flare guns have been made of plastic. These fire 12ga and 20ga shells loaded with a flare. Though the same size as 12 and 20 ga shotgun shells, the flare shells do not have as much power as shotgun shells. However, it is possible the buy a steel tube liner for a 12ga flare gun that can be inserted into the barrel. This enables the 12ga flare gun to fire 20ga shotgun shells.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[SirTicksAlot]

I do 3D printing and I have a post on my site about the plastics commonly used in rep-rap and makerbot type printers:
https://solar1.net/drupal/custom_3D_printing

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Fallingcow]

I understand how rifling works, but I would think a spherical bullet would be less-affected by the lack of rifling than the now-standard dome shaped ones, as at least there's no definite front and back to them.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[blackbear]

Is your rifle an AR style firearm? The AR is a modular design in which the reciever is split. The upper-half can be completly detached, and put on a different gun. You could be in trouble is you have an AR without a serial number on the lower receiver in the US. Or do you have a manufacturers license?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK

No, it's not. I have three upper receivers for my one AR lower, and I purchased them by mail with nothing but a credit card. The barrel/upper receiver portion of an AR type rifle is legally considered just a part, which can be replaced. There is only one part of the entire assembly which is considered the firearm itself, with all the BATF purchase and transfer rules the go with it, and that is the lower receiver, the piece that has the serial number stamped on it.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

The problem with the current paraboloid bullets is that they are long (to accommodate more mass for a higher impulse). This causes the drag force to act behind the center of mass, and this is what tumbles the bullet eventually. When spun, the bullet stabilizes itself against drag effects to a degree, much like a thrown football.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

3D printing kind of implies plastic extrusion these days. But if you have a way of printing solid metal (and not laser-sintering it), please, by all means, do contribute!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[yurtinus]

Don't forget the pressure that will generate inside of the barrel. A bullet gets its speed from containing the exploding powder in the barrel. Firing from a board doesn't contain the explosion and won't see the pressures you'd get firing through a barrel of any length.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC my understanding is that what was printed was the LOWER receiver.
The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

First, you're wrong legally -- for every gun, there's a single piece that is legally the gun, and the rest of it is just parts. In the AR-15 design, it's the lower receiver, and the upper receiver, despite being similarly essential for the gun to operate, is exactly the same legally as any screw, spring, or pin in the gun -- completely uncontrolled.

Second, you're wrong technically -- while the receiver or (if two-piece) upper receiver has some difficult function in many guns, it's not that important in the AR-15. The chamber per se is in the breech end of the barrel (this is almost universally true, BTW), and the lugs which engage the bolt, containing the pressure during firing, are part of the barrel extension. You could assemble a barrel, barrel extension, and bolt on the bench, and fire it with no upper or lower receiver in sight.

The main difficulty I anticipate with an ABS upper receiver will be heat, particularly around the gas tube and gas key, where hot gases from the barrel are vented directly into the receiver. Second biggest will be wear from the reciprocating bolt.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Broken scope]

You need a deep hole drilling machine to ream out a barrel, not a lathe.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Entropius]

The idea is to make weapons which might otherwise be illegal with stuff that can be bought legally, like 3D printers.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Em Adespoton]

The plastics in the printers have a pretty low melt point, so that they can do their job.

However, if you build the part, cast a mold around it, and then use some stronger material in the mold (molten metal, fiberglass, tougher plastic, cellophane, etc) then that should work.

For that matter, if 2 inches of duct tape is tough enough to build a cannon, building this in a layered manner with wire mesh embedded should be enough to produce something that would withstand the pressures at least for single fire (after which the shape would be too deformed).

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

1/4" black iron plumbing pipe is a perfect fit for a .25 rimfire. A .25 rimfire is the worlds lamest round.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you use ordinary modern ammunition in a smoothbore

Yes.

or would the shape of the bullet cause excessive tumbling and inaccuracy?

Also yes. But not a big deal at short range, and you can always handload your own cartridges with balls.

Since shotguns deliver lower pressure than almost any rifle or pistol cartridges, I have to suspect the easy solution is to just build shotguns, and if you want a single bullet, use drag-stabilized slugs like you would use in any other shotgun.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Shotgun]

The strongest epoxy I've personally used, MGS L285 system, has a tensile strength of 70-80 N/mm^2 (10-11kpsi).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mgs%20epoxy%20285&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cozybuilders.org%2Fref_info%2FMGS_L285_properties.pdf&ei=nJQ2UOKdI4PIiwL0i4HgCQ&usg=AFQjCNEGvFmpTE0_Zk5-KZoWcwYlvKaeXg&cad=rja

Some chopped fiber filler will easily make up the difference, but it would need a radically new type of dispenser.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[RevDisk]

If your receiver is new and does not have a serial number, you make be violating federal law. A quick google search with the model or email the manufacturer would give you the information. This only applies if your weapon is modular. If the rifle is essentially one piece and cannot be taken apart, then yep. This is common with bolt action rifles. The receiver is directly behind the barrel, where the bolt is housed. The stock is not the receiver and not usually stamped.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

Do you know of any rapid prototyping machines that can use glass reinforced plastic? I don't think they exist.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[AmiMoJo]

One hell of a shot that takes out an eye but nothing else!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Shotgun]

Smoothbore guns were used for a while before rifling was invented, you know. For the typical range that a handgun is useful, rifling isn't all that critical.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true in the US at least. For it to be a shotgun, it must have a buttstock and be capable of being fired from the shoulder.
Certain smoothbore pistols in the US are classified as AOW's which are subject to extra regulation since they are title 2 firearms, and all smoothbore pistols are illegal in California unless they've been registered as AOW's. But federally, they are generally OK.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

That would be easier with a wax positive. BTW casting steel is a non-trivial exercise. Forged steel is much stronger.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the upper receiver is not legally a "gun". The lower receiver on an AR is the legally controlled part of the rifle. Conveniently for people who want to build their own, the lower receiver doesn't deal with a whole lot of heavy physical stress, and a good plastic can easily handle the job.
 

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[shutdown -p now]

It depends on the rifle. Not all of them split in two like AR does, and even for those that do, the legal status varies. E.g. for SIG 556, the upper receiver is legally "the gun", not the lower.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sometimes the receiver can have significant stresses upon it, e.g. the upper receiver for an AR-15 or the receiver on an AK-pattern firearm. However, through a legal that only the serial numbered part is the actual firearm, only the lower receiver of an AR-15 is regulated as a firearm. It has limited stresses on it since it, primarily holds the trigger, the magazine, and the recoil spring (over a fairly long stroke). In the case of the previously reported printed lower, the stresses were further lowered because it used a .22lr conversion upper, not the full power .223 Remington or 5.56x45MM NATO typical to the design. There's a LARGE difference in energies between the two.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the need for repeatedly? You're printing it. It's untracable. Design something that fires once. Print a dozen of them and load them. There, you now have a backpack or inner lining of your jacket or something full of a dozen rounds you could fire off into anything whatsoever. If you wear gloves through everything, it doesn't matter if it only shoots once, you shoot it, drop it, repeat until you've accomplished your target.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Zcar]

1. Because this is where fun stuff like pistol grips are
2. Because this is where the S/N of the gun needs to be

Nope.

There are other split receiver rifles where the serialized part is the upper receiver. For example the SIG/SAN 550 series. The lower still holds the pistol grip, trigger, and magazine but the upper is serialized.

IIRC, the AR is one of very few rifle designs where the lower is the serialize part.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[operagost]

Works nicely for mob hits. And if the guy survives, you can still finish him off with the pipe.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[operagost]

HO HO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sandstrom solid film lubricants are used on military weapons and would probably make the 3D guns function as intended. That's scary.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Bob-taro]

A lathe might work for a pistol, but for any rifle that uses a modern cartridge with modern powders, a lathe isn't going to cut it.

Is that a pun?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[tibit]

AFAIK, anything that uses extrusion can be fed with glass-reinforced plastic. The plastic melts, glass fibers are short and not a problem -- they don't have to melt, merely deform with the extrusion.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[nurb432]

Make that receiver(s), and i agree. However there are other components that don't do well unless they are hardened, like hammers, guide pins, springs. breech bolt...

I don't think id trust a plastic upper either, due to the bolt flying back and forth in it.

Lowers, are much more tolerant.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[nurb432]

The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

According to current laws, no its not.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

For an AR-15, only the lower receiver portion (stripped lower receiver, to be exact) is governed by firearm laws. The upper receiver is completely unregulated and may legally be bought or sold by anyone without restriction.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[SuricouRaven]

Just what I was thinking, except with a little space between barrels so the warping of one wouldn't affect the others. A throwaway non-reloadable six-shooter. Or more likely four-shooter, as you're still going to need thick plastic.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[thomasw_lrd]

It's all crap. I can buy a muzzleloader over the counter with no documentation at all. It's a gun,not a great one for mass murder, but it does do a number on deer. They even make some muzzleloaders with interchangeable barrells, but you have to apply to own it just like a "regular" handgun or rifle. What's the difference? Hell if I know. So who knows what the "real" definition of a gun is? What is the difference between a muzzleloader and a single-shot shotgun or rifle?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[thomasw_lrd]

I think every gun I own has the SN on the barrel.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I gathered that the purpose of this project, in part, was to circumvent the authority of organizations such as the ATF. Having the ability to have what others wish you not to have by simply removing them as gatekeepers.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Eponymous Hero]

marijuana resin can be used to make plastics stronger than steel. henry ford made a car body out of it and demonstrated it with a sledgehammer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIvGxCLHGI

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

its only a felony if you get caught!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[dbIII]

Most ceramics would be unsuitable since they are so brittle. Partially Stabilised Zirconium (PSZ) is one of the few that could be tough enough, it's even used in some expensive Japanese chef's knives which is the sort of application where sudden impacts happen. The stuff works by expanding into gaps when the material begins to crack, which then closes up the crack (hence "partially stablised", the material is compressed into a smaller volume than its stable state).
There's still the problem of laser sintering the stuff together so that it's solid enough, since you start with powder and want as few gaps as possible so the material will hang together when subjected to a shock wave, or even just bumping the stuff. The chef's knives are made with a lot of heat and pressure to get around that.
One other bit of trivia is that a very similar material (less than 1% difference in composition) is used as a filter on a lot of x-ray equipment so PSZ is fairly close to invisible with some x-ray gear, which means law enforcement gets a bit nervous about the concept of ceramic gun parts.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[dbIII]

In the 1990s I worked with a guy that had made his own smoothbore breach loader and he was using one inch diameter brass tube for the cartridges. Even with a very long barrel (it was a "Brown Bess" style replica) it was more of a point and hope weapon than anything that could be used to hit a target. He did get a greater degree of accuracy by cutting back on the charge but if he sighted on a target it could still miss it most of the time. Apparently that sort of gun worked by a number of soldiers filling a portion of air with fast moving lead instead of expecting to hit specific targets.
So to sum up, it was modern style ammunition (bullet + brass cartridge) in a smoothbore, and the nature of smoothbore vs rifle meant it was far less accurate than a rifle.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[dbIII]

There's stuff like vapour deposition and sputtering but that's really for thin layers commercially. Maybe there's some way to tweak electroplating? Going the other way and removing material (electrochemical machining) works to very high tolerances on even very difficult to handle materials, and can cut a variety of shapes with the right electrode geometry. Building up could be a matter of applying 3D printer control methods to electrode movement, it may be slow but that may not matter.
To me this project is looking like it's artificially constraining itself too much like the "all ceramic engine" project of the 1990s. Some metal parts fabricated in other ways (eg. cut down instead of built up) should be acceptable as long as they can be obtained or fabricated at the workshop instead of machine shop level.
Another alternative is to do it as a chain by using your tools to fabricate the tools you need to make the device you want - like the fine series of books (by Tubal Cain?) a few years back on making a home made forge to make a lathe to make a milling machine.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST the bit to drill the barrel will set you back hundreds of dollars. It's called a gun drill, special purpose carbide that is coolant fed.

Then, for any sort of accuracy, you need to ream the barrel, which is another hundred bucks for the reamer. and if you want to get really fancy you'll hone it too, which thanks to a flex hone can be done for 50-100 bucks.

THEN you have to rifle the thing. you can go old school and cut each groove with a special tool, or you can cut them all at once with a broach... but you need a 100 ton press to do it right.

And to top all of that off, you have to cut the chamber that the ammunition sits in, which is another special carbide tool, unique to each cartridge, and will set you back at least another 100 bucks.

so, you're up to $500+ in specialized tooling. and you have to have a lot of fancy metalworking tools which i have never seen outside of an industrial setting. So it can be done, but it's just as likely as building any other destructive device in your garage.

it is much much much cheaper at this point in time to buy a pre-made barrel. even the big shot gun smiths buy pre made barrels and just chamber them.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Zcar]

You can build a mortar if you fill out the right paper work for a Destructive Device. It's a Form 1. Prior to 1986 you could do machine guns on that form as well.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"You can build a mortar if you fill out the right paper work for a Destructive Device. It's a Form 1. Prior to 1986 you could do machine guns on that form as well."

All you need to do is fill out a Federal Class III Firearms form. It's a standard form and there is a $200 tax for each "Class III" item. For example (I won't say what state it's in) I know of a Class III Firearms shop. You can walk in there quite freely -- and legally -- and walk out with a case of grenades. As long as you are not disqualified (like felony convictions for example) and you can afford the $200 tax for each grenade.

Exactly the same holds true for "machine guns". Just fill out a Class III form and fork over your $200.

A lot of people don't believe it, but yes it's really that easy.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"There are other split receiver rifles where the serialized part is the upper receiver. For example the SIG/SAN 550 series. The lower still holds the pistol grip, trigger, and magazine but the upper is serialized."

The lower receiver is still considered to be the "the gun" according to ATF. When a gun easily separates into parts, the "frame" or "receiver" is the "gun". When there is an upper and lower receiver, the lower receiver is considered "the gun" because the lower receiver is where the main action is (trigger assembly, selective fire mechanism, etc.).

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"However, if you build the part, cast a mold around it, and then use some stronger material in the mold (molten metal, fiberglass, tougher plastic, cellophane, etc) then that should work."

If you're going to to to all that trouble, why not just use a thin steel sleeve in the barrel?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

" I can buy a muzzleloader over the counter with no documentation at all. It's a gun,not a great one for mass murder, but it does do a number on deer. They even make some muzzleloaders with interchangeable barrells, but you have to apply to own it just like a "regular" handgun or rifle."

Those are mostly state laws, not federal. Here, under some circumstances I can buy ANY gun, without any kind of documentation. Except, of course, for anything that's Class III (fully auto, grenades, etc.). Those do require a federal form.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"If you just want to build weapons in general, it would be absolutely trivial to make an effective stabbing weapon with a 3D printer. You cold even make one out of water-soluble PVA plastic and dump it in the river when you're done!"

They've been for sale commercially for over 30 years.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"They are not at all ideal for self-sustainability since you need a lot of other resources to build and operate them."

Nonsense. They are available pre-assembled for under $500, are made from readily-available commercial parts if they break, and the raw plastic is pretty cheap if you know where to look.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

I should have added that with most of them, if there are parts that are not easily available commercially, like custom-molded plastic parts: you just print your own spares and store them away for a rainy day.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"... it's even used in some expensive Japanese chef's knives..."

I have some PSZ cutlery and it's not very good. It may keep an edge for half of forever; but you can't put a very good edge on it in the first place.

It won't hold an edge at the same small angle that a good steel blade will. They have to be sharpened at a larger angle (they come that way)... which means you just paid a fortune for a perpetually semi-dull knife.

I don't want to exaggerate. They're okay. But they just don't cut like good steel.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

What he said. You can fire it from a board, but there is so little pressure, the bullet probably would not penetrate another board. That kind of defeats the purpose.

You need to have something that will take not just the heat, but enough pressure to fire a bullet effectively. The latter is really the bigger problem.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"I think the aim here is to have a workable gun: accurate within reasonable limits (say, 75-100 meters), and lethal, or the very least, damaging."

No, to be honest here, I think the immediate goal is more like 75-100 inches, when it comes to accuracy.

You aren't going to be starting out with rifle bullets. Those generate FAR too much pressure for an experiment of this sort. No, it will be small-caliber pistol bullets, which means close range.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ironman_one]

How about a air gun? They can be quite powerful.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[dbIII]

That's interesting to read. I've only ever come across the material as part of industrial equipment (eg. a big ball of the stuff in a crude oil valve), but brought up the knives to provide an example people could better understand. I'm glad now that when I was thinking about getting some PSZ knives online that the price scared me off.
I remember reading somewhere about someone making a gun barrel out of PSZ a few years back but don't have a web link. Google provided this but I'm not really sure if this thing with a PSZ based barrel ever actually worked:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/05/what-happened-the-the-mythical-undetectable-plastic-gun/

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

Point taken, gradual steps. In my defense, I was viewing this in light of the printed AR-15 lower receiver, and thinking of ways to go from there.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Mindcontrolled]

Gas dynamic cold spray. Can be used for extremely resilient parts - commercially, it is used for turbine parts for example. Might be a wee bit out of the hobbyist league, cost-wise, though.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has the motivation, time and resources to make a 3D printer for weapon making would be a complete idiot to not use those resources to make cheaper, better weapons instead.

The whole point of 3D printer is that it works without your constant supervision. While a part is being produced, you can do something else (like ... fight?), or you could set up a battery (or fleet) of 3D printers to print many parts simultaneously. And I guess the whole point of "Defense Dist." is evasion on weapons trade bans and restrictions in crisis areas - empowering the rebels e.g. in Syria or some other parts of the world. However, the reality doesn't discriminate freedom fighters from terrorists, so in the end both people you like and people you don't like will have this technology in their hands or at least strive to have it in their hands. I can totally predict Israel banning 3D printers in Gaza Strip or Jordan West Bank after this tech is first time used to create parts for weaponry. If hammers and files were all you needed to turn junk into guns, the governments throughout the world would ban hammers and files.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[parkinglot777]

You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.

And that would not be very long if you see how 3d-printing starts to be more and more popular... When it comes, it will be too late to prevent anything because what these people think is 1)benefit themselves for what so called "research" and 2)short-sighted.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC my understanding is that what was printed was the LOWER receiver.
The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

...

Wrong.

 

On an AR-15, the upper receiver is not "also the gun" legally. Only the so-called "serialized part" is the gun (by the ATF's definitions). Some guns, the serialized part is the upper receiver, on others, it's the lower receiver.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Dekker3D]

Well, then they're avoiding government regulation. Doesn't the american government react to that pretty much the same way?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Tyndmyr]

It is. Oddly enough, I've been working on a similar project myself.... I think he's going in the wrong direction with .22. The pressure the chamber/barrel gets is too damned high. Sure, it's a low powered round, but also one with a fairly small surface area. Therefore, the pressure is up there. Instead of the roughly 24k psi pressures experienced during a .22, I'm utilizing a .38 cal at around 16.5k psi. This dramatically improves the engineering problem, but it's still non-trivial, and I've got some significant trials ahead before I'll be confident of anything.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Tyndmyr]

Most printers use straight PLA or ABS. In theory, you could alter this, using carbon fiber doped plastic or something similar, but the more exotic the material, the more it defeats the original purpose, so that path has limited value. In theory, a sufficiently thick ABS barrel should work...but the break point of plastics alters under heating, so lots of overbuilding and testing is almost certain to be necessary.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Tyndmyr]

Printable springs are already a thing, though...

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

That's a bit simplified. First, you have to fill out the form and gain approval thru both the ATF and the Chief of the county law enforcement for each purchase and pay the $200 tax. Strictly speaking what you said is correct, but you've understated the disqualifiers by an order of magnitude. It's more than just a basic criminal history check as it would be for a normal firearm. You must register with the ATF. Then it's a full background investigation including submission of fingerprints, credit reports, criminal background, and quite possibly interviews of associates.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

You are, of course, correct; my fingers got ahead of my brain for a moment. Thank you for the correction.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Zcar]

Not Class III. Class III refers to the type of tax (Special Occupation Tax) a Type 1 FFL pays to also be able to deal in Title 2 NFA firearms (machine guns, destructive devices, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons).

Form 1 is the form used to pay the $200 tax to make a Title 2 NFA firearm. This CANNOT currently be used for machine gunes because the Firearm Owner's Protection Act prohibits any new machine guns from being added to the NFA registry. No new machine guns for citizens. This restriction on the registering of new machine guns is responsible for the astronomical price of machine guns in the US: USD 15,000+ for an M16, for example, when an "identical" semi-automatic AR-15 is under USD 1,000.

Form 4 is the other commonly used form for citizens, which is to pay the tax to transfer an already registered Title 2 firearm to a non-license holder. This is $200 for each type except for an AOW, which is $5. Machine guns already in the register (i.e. registered prior to September 1986) can be transferred on a Form 4.

There are other forms. Form 3 for transfers between SOT holders (Class III dealers or Class II manufacturers). Form 5 for tax free transfers such as to a government agency or inheritance.

Also, you can't just walk in and buy grenades. You're skipping the several months process of waiting for the Form 4 to be approved by the ATF. Also, any of these forms, when used by an individual, requires fingerprints to be taken and a signature from the head of a local law enforcement agency (sheriff, chief or police, etc.).

It's easier to buy some NFA articles in many European countries than it is in the US. For example, in several countries (Finland, for one) silencers aren't even regulated as firearms.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Zcar]

I do know the process, having gone through the Form 1 process a couple of times going the Trust route. Filing these forms using a Trust as the owner (or any other type of legal person, LLC, etc.) bypasses the law enforcement signature, finger prints, etc. It's a common enough way to bypass the signature requirement in jurisdictions when law enforcement isn't open to signing the forms even though they're really only signing a statement they know of no reason you don't qualify. It's not intended to be permission, though it is in many jurisdictions.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[heefeneet]

I forsee many shot-out eyes...

Do not look into printed gun with remaining eye?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[zoloto]

That's not how primers work. You'd have to use different ones to get it working

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

Glass reinforced plastic is highly abrasive. The fibers aren't that short. Up to 10mm depending on the plastic (they charge more for longer fibers).

Also the fibers align themselves with the flow of the plastic in injection molds. This fiber alignment is very important with regards to which directions the fibers reinforce. Also you want at least a little turbulence at the gate, to tangle the fibers before they align.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[lsatenstein]

I would think the limiting factor would be the strength of the plastic and not the design itself.

Would not the limiting factor be the gun lobby, which will see their sales drop very very substantially.

Now they will say, guns don't kill, 3D printed guns kill

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[tibit]

+1 Informative.You're right, if a reprap lays down the extrusion, the fibers will follow the extruder path. When making a barrel of a gun, you'll want the reprap's head to go around the barrel -- the axis of the barrel will go up from the baseplate of reprap. That way the fibers take the hoop stresses. For the second and subsequent layers, you need to refixture the barrel in an indexing chuck and lay longitudinal extrusions to make it strong along its length, alternating with spiral extrusions for further hoop stress strength. It can be engineered to work IMHO, even on a reprap. The very second layer will probably be just a long spiralling fill of the outer side of the riflings to make things even, I'd think.

If long thin reprapped pipes happen not to turn out very straight, then probably even the first layer would need to be laid on a mandrel in a 4th axis chuck.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"First, you have to fill out the form and gain approval thru both the ATF and the Chief of the county law enforcement for each purchase and pay the $200 tax."

The ATF does have to approve, but unless you have some kind of red flags on your name, it's pretty much a rubber stamp. Yes, the FIRST time you do it, you will have to supply additional information to the ATF, such as fingerprints and pictures. But once you are approved as a Class III (often referred to as Title II) owner, you don't have to go through that again.

And as the other responder mentioned, if it is a corporation buying it, those restrictions don't apply, and the approval is usually faster.

As for the "county law enforcement" approval, that's not part of the Federal law at all. It must be a state law where you're from. It doesn't exist here.

And as for the each purchase part, I stated that myself.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

" Class III refers to the type of tax (Special Occupation Tax) a Type 1 FFL pays to also be able to deal in Title 2 NFA firearms (machine guns, destructive devices, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons)."

Technically it is Title II, but they are often referred to as Class III firearms because of the tax. People who would actually do this already understand what I mean.

You are correct, however, that since 1986 it does take a different form for a "machinegun" as defined by the law. Still, they are not prohibited and may still be purchased, if they were manufactured before May 19, 1986.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

"In my defense, I was viewing this in light of the printed AR-15 lower receiver, and thinking of ways to go from there."

That's a good point also. But it was my understanding that they were talking here about building pretty much an entire gun.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[DirtyLiar]

X-actly. Success seems dubious.

Depending on what they mean by "single-shot". And if they plan on making the barrel out of printable plastics.

One shot and the gun's dead? - Maybe. But that seems a poor choice for self-defence.

One shot at a time, but reloadable? - Doesn't seem do-able, and also not really the best choice for self defence. What happens when you need a second or third shot faster than you can reload?

If they really can make a re-usable gun with a printer, it'll be a nightmare for the cops, FBI, CIA, ATF, TSA, Homeland Security, etc.

And if the barrel can be destroyed or recycled, then they have created the perfect assassination / murder gun.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

The fibers would be aligned in the direction the plastic flowed out of the nozzle. Not the direction the nozzle moved between dabs. Also you would need very short fibers to avoid pulling plastic out of the nozzle during moves.

Can you point me to a source for spools of glass reinforced nylon-66?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

Those are generally .22LR. A vastly better round the a .25 which is about equal to a .22 short (I've never seen an actual .22 short. Even derringers shoot .22LR.)

I think a .22LR rattling down a barrel would still be better then a .25!

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[HornWumpus]

Isn't a deep hold drilling machine a type of Lathe? Just longer reamers and appropriate tool holders.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC my understanding is that what was printed was the LOWER receiver.
The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

So no, at least with my understanding of the plastics available for 3d printing, nobody's actually going to making a "gun" with a 3d printer. The MINIMUM breach pressure (.22 rimfire handgun cartridge, barely more than a bb gun) is 21000 psi or about 1500 bar. Real guns start at 40-50,000 psi or 3000-3500 bar (most sporting handgun/rifle cartridges).

OK yes, it would be possible to build a "gun" with a thick enough barrel that it might withstand the pressures, but it would be more akin to a wooden cannon, and I wouldn't want to be near it for the 2nd or 3rd firings...

Anyone know more about the plastics in the printers?

But then "someone printed parts that could be attached to a gun" isn't a very exciting headline, I understand.

" So no, at least with my understanding of the plastics available for 3d printing, nobody's actually going to making a "gun" with a 3d printer."

So, we need something other than plastics. But as I understand it the basic process seems to be that you get a material and fire it through a very small opening at a target - isn't that what ink jet printers do?

So - if you had a printer that could withstand the heat - couldn't you use a sintering process?

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bullet and casing would be metal still, but you could probably get around that.

Just how Mr Science ??

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have had "Polymer firearms" for quite a few years where most of the gun with the exception of a barrel and bolt were plastic. (The chamber being part of the barrel)
You have to be careful about the "Non sporting" definition, as that definition is relatively new and a bit fluid at present, such as a forward grip on a shotgun. OTOH you will find that over 10% of the firearms now used for hunting (both shotguns and rifles) fit the definition of tactical and under this definition are not considered sporting arms. There are a lot of larger caliber (308) ARs out in the deer hunting woods. The only limit for hunting is the number of rounds the clip or magazine can carry which I believe is 5.

According to the "world wide" definition, assault rifles are capable of full automatic fire. In the US the definition was changed to anything that pretty much looks like an assault rifle, I believe in the Clinton years when they found out their assault rifle bad didn't include the semi-automatic, civilian versions available on the open market. Of course we are the only country where HP ammunition use is permitted by police and other government agencies.

Printing out the lower receiver was verified.and was only done for a 22 caliber system. There is still considerable stress imparted to the lower receiver in larger calibers and shot shells.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still substantial stress of the receiver in larger calibers, but there are some very strong polymers out there.
Currently it is the lower receiver that gets the serial # and is considered to be "the gun". Even with a bolt action, the S# is on the forward portion of the receiver which contains the bolt.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

only around christmas

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[tibit]

A friend of mine, who had access to an old extruder from a cable factory, has made some for himself, but that was a couple years ago. It wasn't for a gun, but perhaps close. It was for a scale prototype of a pyrotechnic cannon used in a model of a live action show.

As for the fiber alignment: maybe we're thinking of a different reprap, the one I saw might have been under a different name, but it laid a continuous filament of plastic, not "dabs", at least in the particular application I saw it used in. If you were to make a pipe with it, the nozzle would go on small pitch spiral, effectively. With the fibers in the plastic, one had to be a bit creative at the time where the machine was not supposed to dispense the material. What he'd done was to move the nozzle fast away from the material, leaving a thin shard sticking up. Those had to be trimmed before the next layer could be laid down, and methinks he made a trimmer attachment to do just that after getting tired of manually reworking each layer where the filament had to terminate.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[X0563511]

Makes sense, as this is where they could match ballistics from. Everything else could be swapped out without much changing this, so this is the part you'd want to uniquely identify.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Nimey]

On the Mosin-Nagant series, it's apparently the barrel that's considered the gun, or at least that's where the Soviets put their serials.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

To put it another way, I was thinking of printing assault rifles, not pistols. I know they're trying to print the whole thing out of plastic, that's what I think won't work due to plastic being too weak (structurally) for the task at hand.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Jane Q. Public]

I know. My point was that it was not the topic under discussion.

Look up the AR-7. It was first manufactured by Armalite as an Air Force survival rifle, shooting .22 Hornet. It went under the ejection seats in the survival kits that were supplied to pilots flying over enemy territory. (The .22 Hornet deserves respect. With care and stealth it can bring down big game.)

Later, it was sold to Charter Arms for civilian production, using .22 LR. Semi-auto, 9-round clip, collapsible, floats if dropped in water.

The original and the Charter Arms AR-7 had an aluminum barrel with a steel sleeve. The whole thing weighed 2 lb. (which, along with foam in the buttstock, helped it to float). Great little pack gun.

Then, with lagging sales, the AR-7 design was bought up by Henry of New York. Henry made a cheaper version: instead of aluminum, the barrel was nylon, with the same steel sleeve. (This sounds like a bad thing, but actually the Armalite and Charter Arms versions were prone to bending, if for example you sat on the barrel. The nylon was not as "strong", per se, but it tended to snap back rather than permanently bend.)

Henry took some other shortcuts, such as not bothering to fill the stock with foam, and relying on trapped air for the floatation. (Meaning, in effect, it might float for a few minutes but not forever.)

Anyway, it's an interesting tale about a largely-plastic barrel. My understanding is that Charter Arms got the rights back (for whatever reason) and are making the aluminum-steel barrel again.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Smidge204]

1) It has not been my personal experience that the machines can run properly 100% unattended. That might be true for the multi-thousand dollar ones (at least I certainly hope it is for that kind of money!) but the reprap machine I own needs to be checked on and fiddled with on a fairly regular basis.

2) Even for the expensive machines, a print of any significance takes on the order of hours. Assuming you had a machine physically capable of doing so, an AK-47 sized object would take at least 80 hours my guess, based on total volume. For reference, this part that I printed a few weeks ago took about 3 hours and had two failed attempts. It's 36mm high and 88mm in diameter.

3) Rebels in Serbia are not going to have the luxury or materials to exploit 3D printing. As before, either it's extremely expensive or it's fidgety and unreliable. Meanwhile, rebels and the like have been successfully manufacturing AK-47s and other highly effective weapons in caves and tents for decades, in some cases using what literally amount to basic hand tools and scrap materials. The bar for weapons manufacture is so amazingly low trying to use a 3D printer would actually make things much harder... but unfortunately it's some people's wet dream to "click button, receive gun" that they can't see how stupid it really is. Most of the people obsessed with printing guns don't own a printer, and none of them seem to have even tried to build an operable firearm themselves. Pure fucking fantasy.

4) Guess what? Hammers and files (and hacksaws) are all you need to make a device that fires bullets at the intended target reliably. That and about $10 worth of pipe and fittings from a hardware store. Why isn't this more common? It might be because the demand for impromptu weapons just isn't there...

5) If you still don't think effective weapons can be made with basic hand tools and whatever shit is laying around, ask an Iraq / Afghanistan veteran about IEDs.
=Smidge=

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Smidge204]

You might not appreciate it, but $500 is a lot of money. The plastic feedstock you need is also $23 a pound. You can get cheaper, but you'll have so many jamming, under/over fill, stripping, warping and delamination issues that you'll regret wasting your money within a day.

You also need electricity and a computer of course. Not necessarily available in some situations.

Meanwhile, all you need to make an operable firearm is ammo and a length of pipe. By the time your 3D printer is warmed up I'll be putting a fist-sized hole through it with a load of buckshot.
=Smidge=

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Smidge204]

Then that idea has already been hashed to death. You can already make illegal weapons with stuff that can be bought legally, like plumbing pipe and lumber and whatever you can scrounge up from around the home if you've got appropriate levels of knack. A 3D printer actually makes things harder in several ways, unless you want a *specific* gun which you still won't get because your printed version would be plastic instead of metal.

Look around you. If you can't make a serviceable weapon with what you see then you'll never be able to make one on a 3D printer.
=Smidge=

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Eponymous Hero]

and lets you come up with your own designs. like the internet made everyone a publisher, this could make every one a manufacturer. write your own books and distribute online, design your own gun model and distribute online. watch out, the next **AA will be the NRAA.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[ThunderBird89]

I think you're looking for a man-portable version of Metal Storm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE). That, or a bullet-based version of that area-effect attack from Deus Ex: Human Evolution...

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Anonymous Coward]

if u want a good idea for a working plastic gun dont use bullets try compressed air darts or bolts like a crossbow from rdn in ok.122062

Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Government is tired of this 3D printing business, so they got some yahoos to start printing guns.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY how 3D printing was shut down in the Cory Doctorow book "Makers".

Life imitates art!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Razgorov Prikazka]

Yes, I think that shutting this down is going to be hard. Remember the days that one bought a CD from his allowance, and the rest of the friends copied it to tape, then from tape to tape (later we had doublespeed)... Now, that was about music, what will a government do if the kids start to print out their weapons, and find a way to manufacture the barrel and chamber and the other parts that need to be from metal?
Governments, and especially the non freedom-loving ones (like in Yurp, most of Asia) see them lose the violence-monopoly...
Its going to be a great time! Weapons on doublespeed!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government (especially cops). Rationale? The stranger is merely an unknown, but government has proven over and over again that they are willing to use deadly force as a means to achieve their agenda (both inside and outside the border) -- regardless of whether that agenda is moral and just.

It amazes me that so many people want to forcefully remove firearms from those who handle them responsibly, yet at the same time, they NEVER question the fact that government wields deadly force as a matter of daily business.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Dunbal]

People make their own guns now. It's not that hard to do. Who needs accuracy when you press it against someone's head.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing reasoning. Well do!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would assume that anybody who is terribly concerned would move to restrict ammunition supplies.

Not too much you can do about somebody moderately competent DIYing something resembling a usable propellant(though, noob explosives production is a good way to lose fingers, and building bombs is probably a better bang for your buck than making propellants) and lead casting is limited largely by your willingness to damage your nervous system; but proper, reliable, modern ammunition is fairly polished stuff...

These 'zOMG 3D-print a gun!!' projects are mostly a novelty, both in the sense that anything you could 3D-print a gang with some machine tools could stamp out a few hundred, better and cheaper, in a random garage somewhere; and in the sense that the BATF only tracks some parts as 'weapons' and you can thus dodge some reasonably vexing engineering just by buying the rest of the parts and ammunition to suit over the counter.

Between the relatively easy availability of mass-produced weapons that don't suck, in unrestrictive jurisdictions, and the availability of illegal weapons(or the unavailability of engineering-critical parts and consumables, depending on how good the enforcement is) in restrictive jurisdictions, there really isn't too much of note here.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done! opps

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

You have successfully captured the paranoia of the stereotypical American gun nut. Nicely done.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Applekid]

Looks like the Government is tired of this 3D printing business, so they got some yahoos to start printing guns.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY how 3D printing was shut down in the Cory Doctorow book "Makers".

Life imitates art!

Heh, that the first thing I thought when I saw this article. They created this fake initiative to have justifications to create a bunch of new laws and restrictions, basically stealing technology out of the hands of the people.

I'm definitely going to check out that book, thanks for the lead!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[darkmeridian]

You don't want to give a gun to a government employee because they have done bad things. Rather, you are willing to give a gun to a complete non-government stranger because complete non-government strangers have never done anything illegal, or the achieve his agenda. *blank stare*

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[characterZer0]

If you can press it against someone's head you can use a knife, no?

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK government is probably going spastic over this. We're not even allowed realistic looking BB guns and they have to be transparent or brightly coloured:

http://bbgunsuk.co.uk/2-colour/

Criminals aren't worried about this because they've already got real guns. The only people who are inconvenienced by UK gun law are people who want to collect some realistic looking BB guns or who want to use real guns for sport. If I actually wanted to kill somebody I'd use an axe, knife, pen or maybe my bare fists. Banning guns is utterly pointless.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know the stranger isn't a government agent?

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Feyshtey]

And every person of color in the inner city. And everyone of color in the southern states. And every person of a little-understood religion. And every foreigner from heavily dictatorial nation. And members of anarchist groups. And members of biggoted groups. And hardcore political activtivists on the left and right....

But other than that, yeah, it's just the wacko gun nuts...

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he hold a special "right" to employ deadly force in offense, rather than merely in self-defense, and he usually makes that pretty clear right off the bat.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Khyber]

BOOM is more impressive and intimidating than SNICK

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[misexistentialist]

You've not only captured the paranoia of the anti-freedom nut, but his state of denial too. You, sir, are far too modest!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Exactly

http://www.4-traders.com/STRATASYS-INC-10950/news/Stratasys-Inc-Stratasys-to-Serve-in-Obama-Administration-s-Additive-Manufacturing-Center-of-Exce-14466669/

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

Not even wrong, but stupid too. Poorly done.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is fucking retarded.

You can't "shutdown 3D printing"

Plus the government doesnt give a shit about your little hobby.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly grouping? "Anyone sanctioned by government" is almost as equally a huge group as "anyoneone living in $country".

As for the latter... by that piece of logic, "they" also clearly have proven that they're murderous rapists with various mental illnesses and excessive alcohol consumption. And that's not even the worst of "their" problems.

But of course, that doesn't work, does it?

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well he's only a nut if he's full of crap. If you think he's full of crap you clearly haven't been paying attention.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the devil you don't know is better than the devil you know.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

And he's not full of crap because you agree with him, amirite?

That's Libertarian Rhetoric 101 stuff, kiddo. I've heard it all before.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have successfully captured the paranoia of the stereotypical American who realizes that certain individuals have unchecked power. Nicely done.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[FutureDomain]

Rather, you are willing to give a gun to a complete non-government stranger because complete non-government strangers have never done anything illegal, or the achieve his agenda.

Yes, not because you know he hasn't done anything illegal, but because the probability that he's wrongly killed someone is extremely low. On the other hand, an armed governmental stranger (especially a cop) is much more likely to have wrongly killed someone. It probably wasn't illegal (since the government makes the laws in the first place) or if it was it was ignored, but they have a much higher tendency to wrongfully kill someone because they have done it before and gotten away with it or they know they can.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[GodInHell]

Also more like to cause police and other armed people to notice your committing murder. Just saying.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[moeinvt]

The OP stated he would trust 'A' OVER 'B'

"I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government"

The difference is that it is illegal for your average (non-government) stranger to use force except in defense against an imminent threat. Government employees by contrast are legally sanctioned to use violent force in any number of situations.

I agree with the OP entirely. I'm much more wary of armed government employees (cops) than armed citizens.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[moeinvt]

"the government doesnt give a shit about your little hobby."

Oh really? Try making a few guns and then selling them. Post back here when you're out on bail.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[roman_mir]

So the OP says that government kills people on every day basis and your response is - you are a nut?

Government DOES kill people on daily basis, thousands, tens of thousands, millions are killed by governments every year. Aren't you priorities misplaced?

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[ArsonSmith]

...but the government only kills people that deserve it.~

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I actually wanted to kill somebody I'd use an axe, knife, pen or maybe my bare fists.

I'd use readily available chemicals in not readily available concentrations.

A little nicotine will go a long ways, so does caffeine.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Orga]

Guns for show, knives for a pro.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Dunbal]

And the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. And women think this refers to food.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[tmosley]

"Hurr durr u r wrung n stupd."

I notice you don't give a second's thought to the oppressed people throughout history who could have used this technology to defend themselves from brutal government oppression. Would Hitler have been able to kill the Jews if they had been equipped with single shot disposable pistols? Could he have rounded up similarly equipped Gypsies? How would Stalin's purges have gone if after the first one every door they kicked in had five to ten people armed with these behind them?

No, it's all gun nuts, because human nature has certainly changed in a fundamental way over the last 70 years, and it could never happen here, and this time will be different!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally correct but there are home built barrel machines that can be built for under $500 with lots of know how and scrounged parts. These machines can bore, ream and rifle the barrel in about 6 hrs. Not really practical for your own manufacturing as a commercial barrel is less expensive. And the 6 to 10 weekends it would take to set up the shop, plus the materials cost really puts it outside the hobbist machinists unless he is really motivated.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Its only "paranoia" if the fear is irrational and unjustified.

Unfortunately recent history is full of examples of abuse of governmental power and the "civilized" ways for the governed (courts, elections) to obtain justice for which have been rendered largely useless for a large portion of the victims.

The court system is not only guaranteed to bankrupt one being persecuted (not to mention that when facing a group of thuggish government officials on a power trip the first step is usually freezing/confiscation of all assets of the victim) but the courts themsevles have proven to be easily manipulated by the government bureaucrats and officials and are consistently siding with various three letter agencies. Even if they are not, their rulings are ignored (such as the recent TSA rulings), until such time when a new, more favourable ruling can be managed or in more extreme cases where the "law" can be reworked post-facto to the power-holder's advantage (such as the "legality" of torture and indefinite detention without trial of Guantanamo detainees).

Similarly, elections are largely meaningless since the US (and increasingly all the other "Western democracies") feature gigantic 2-way, gaudy sporting matches where the spectacle of personality cults and insane exaggerations of minutia differences between two or three facets of the ruling elite are meant to hide the fact that no real (in practical terms) differences exist between the team "red" and team "blue" and they are all working with/for the same elite and its ideology. You are just supposed to paint your face one of these colours and go screeching - spittle flying - at the supporters of the other team, a model successfully borrowed from the Football (or Soccer) scene. Just make sure you do not actually pause to think what you are doing and who benefits from this madness.

Now top it with the obvious trend of the governments expanding their power by leaps and bounds (TSA, extra-judiciary powers of the President to drone-assassinate American citizens he deems "enemies", etc and so on) and instead of making the poster you are replying to look like a paranoiac, you are making yourself look to be - at best - an uncurious, inattentive, "it can't happen here", "I can't hear anything lalalalalala", individual so desperate to believe that everything is "all right" that he is willing to ignore every second news item for a decade or so, or - at worst - an autocratic shill who actually likes the idea of "putting the malcontents in their place" and who worships naked, raw power and believes those who wield it deserve it and therefore can do no wrong.

Incidentally, 3D printed guns are not even a factor in the equations of power and constitute a negligeable "threat", but never the less will be dealt with harshly using hugely overreaching, draconian powers because even a tiny "threat" to the power-holders has to be neutralized immediately or else in can blossom into a much larger one and an unthinkable situation of a significant untraceable group of citizenry capable of physically resisting their government (to however a small degree) would possibly result. And thus the rulers would have to start actually be wary of the ruled, instead of just the other way around. And so "at 3am came balaclava-clad ATF knocking, with battering rams and bags to put on our heads, one for me, one for my wife and two wee ones for our kids, for I was guilty of an Unlicensed Possession of a 3D Printing Device and Printing an Unapproved Object".

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Havenwar]

Actually that's incorrect. While it might seem that way, it's an impression that doesn't hold up to real world scrutiny. For instance studies have shown that rape victims are less likely to violently resist when the rapist has a knife compared to when he has a gun. Researchers believe that a knife is more primal, more personal, which makes it more scary when you are up close and personal.

I'm not saying a gun isn't a great big show-off thing, it surely is, but that's all about things "over there" that needs a few extra holes in them. Things that are up close and personal would be much more impressed and intimated by the knife.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

And speaking of stupid, here's another tmosley special.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[roman_mir]

Well, of-course, if they put it that way then it totally makes perfect sense. It's the 'Yeah, but they were all bad' excuse.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[tmosley]

"Hurr durr u dun gree wit me so ur stupd."

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[epyT-R]

You'd be correct except it's not paranoia. It's fact. Examples of police abuse are a youtube search away.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[epyT-R]

Those 'hardcore political activists' and 'bigoted groups' on the left and right are the ones running the government, so....the gp is correct.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[tahuti]

Why not both? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_revolver

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Required Snark]

Move to South Central Los Angeles, it has lot's of "strangers with guns".

Here's an interactive map maintained by the LA Times showing homicides in the greater LA area.

http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/map/?year=All+years

The large concentration of deaths is Compton/Watts where there is a lot of illegal activity (gangs) and lots of illegal weapons. Random people get shot there all the time. It doesn't even make the headlines, unless it's a child.

Your are a privileged right wing arrogant asshole. You have no idea what it's like to live with real world gun violence in you community. The gang bangers make the cops look good, and the cops are not very trustworthy here in LA.

Without the government guns that you despise, the US would be like Mexico, with drug cartels routinely doing mass killings. You think you're tough, but your toy gun collection wouldn't protect you against professional gangsters. You depend on a system that you disrespect. You are as stupid as you look.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[BlueStrat]

That's Libertarian Rhetoric 101 stuff, kiddo. I've heard it all before.

Yeah, how dare those libertarians go around suggesting the government leave folks alone!

Why, if that kind of thinking got popular, the US might become a nation of free people with very low taxes and a national budgetary surplus to easily handle wars, emergencies, disasters, etc!

Oh, the horror.

Strat

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget middle-aged white people who simply pay attention to society.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Chrontius]

Concealed carry license holders engaged in a defensive shooting tend to be if I remember correctly, about 3 times as accurate as police officers.

The CCW holder probably enjoys recreational shooting, and therefore remains in practice more often than the average cop - only some of which fire their weapon more often than ten rounds every year to remain qualified.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[cowboy76Spain]

The difference is that these guns might not be accurate, but they will easier to do. Making a gun and not getting it exploding in your hand needs some experience with the hardware, which is an entry barrier. This project completely eliminates that barrier.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

The pity is that he and those like him will probably never recognize this.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[mirix]

How would Stalin's purges have gone if after the first one every door they kicked in had five to ten people armed with these behind them?

Well, seeing as the purged included marshals, admirals, and generals, (among lower ranks as well) I'd have a hard time believing guns would have made much of a difference, as certainly the military members had arms.
They'd just be prolonging the the inevitable. Stalin's gonna getcha anyhow.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime! The book's awesome, you'll really like it. He explores all the possible ramifications of the tech by following some people who start a company and advocate it. The government jumps on the first excuse it gets to outlaw the tech... I found it completely fascinating.

You'll also like his book "Little Brother", I think -- about how technology empowers citizens even when the government goes totalitarian.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[coinreturn]

Best rebuttal ever. Reminds me of a movie where some white guy is screaming the lines of some gangsta rap in his car like he's tough, until some black guy walks by the car and the white guy locks the doors in a panic.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Khyber]

"Researchers believe that a knife is more primal, more personal, which makes it more scary when you are up close and personal."

Researchers are playing upon their own fears.

You're doing nothing more than furthering them.

Knives may be more silent, but guns are pretty much de-facto death guaranteed.

Good job empowering women to be more stupid.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Havenwar]

Let me reiterate. Research shows that this is how people actually react. In real life the majority of victims are more afraid of a knife than a gun, in close distance one on one violations. I don't claim this is logical, or smart, but it's how people react regardless. It's not something I'm furthering, advocating, or anything of the kind... it's just basic psychological research, which clearly refutes your statment that "BOOM is more impressive and intimidating than SNICK" when you are close enough to press it against someone's head. It just isn't, to most people.

If you're not sober enough to realize that the world is bigger than your own context, and that people have emotional reactions with no basis in your logic or reasoning about the deadlyness of a weapon, then that is truly not my problem, and I won't bother to argue it any more.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Feyshtey]

So you suggest that it's irresponsible to allow those cartels and gangsters from such a warzone like Mexico (paraphrasing your words) to freely pass into the US from Mexico?

If only we had some government organization that we could respect and praise for their uncompromising control of the border and a Presidential administration that allows them to do it.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[couchslug]

Printing weapons is hardly "yahoo" work.

There is no real freedom without the capability of lethal self-defense. Power cannot reside in "the people" unless they have the ability to use lethal force. Tyrants can ignore your "rights", but they can't ignore being killed.

If "the governed" cease to "consent", they can fight even beastly governments like that of Syria.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[couchslug]

Does that make the Founders "stereotypical gun nuts" for writing the Second Amendment?

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Khyber]

>basic psychological research
>psychology
>soft science
>research

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Science has LAWS. Psychology has none. Hence, psychology is not a science.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Havenwar]

"Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors," says wikipedia, and backs it up with citations from various sources including the APA, which if you didn't know it is... "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world's largest association of psychologists, with more than 137,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members."

If you want to troll people, you should really try harder. Or if you're actually trying to argue a point perhaps you'd do better if you found some facts to back you up first.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a list of things that the OP DIDN'T say:

1. "ALWAYS mistrust armed government employees."
2. "ALWAYS trust an armed stranger over an armed gov't employee." (This is just stupid of you to assume he said this. He was clearly talking about *unknown* armed strangers, whereas if he lived in an area where armed strangers were most likely gansters, he would *know* that the the stranger was likely a gangster; so the stranger wouldn't be a random unknown armed stranger.)
3. "We don't need a police force."

TL;DR: you're assuming a lot of things that, if true, would mean the OP was an idiot. But the OP *never* said any of these things. So you're the idiot for assuming.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Khyber]

Simple fact - none of their BS thoughts or theories apply to me. They've tried. Thinking you can apply rigorous and rigid method to something as flexible as human emotional and mental states is pure stupidity and only exists to push pills in the market.

Also, given that these very same supposed doctors are letting insane people run our country - yea, no, they're not worth their degrees.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Havenwar]

Actually anyone who is legally allowed to vote is "letting insane people run our country", or rather YOUR country.

I'm also highly amused by your statement that you can't "apply rigorous and rigid method to something as flexible as human emotional and mental states," since that is almost exactly what I said a few replies up the thread when I reminded you that the fact that YOU don't see a knife as more scary than a gun doesn't mean that everyone is like you. So thank you for admitting that you agree with me on the original point.

And I must say it doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you've encountered the mental health industry.

To put that behind us though, it doesn't really matter whether psychology itself is a science or not, you can still do scientific research into it. If I wanted to prove that astrology is bullcrap that's easily done, but I'd have to do scientific research into astrology to do so. Whether or not astrology is scientific doesn't matter in that context.

In other words, whether or not psychology is a science or not, psychological research can be done by sound scientific rules. I know you won't agree with me, because you don't really seem like the type of person that actually cares about reason and logic, so yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It was a pleasure arguing with you, good luck with your "horticulture".

Won't get far

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see them getting far with this before someone comes knocking on their door with a search warrant and a C&D order.

Re:Won't get far

[Feyshtey]

That wont happen until someone passes law governing the activity. And its an absolute certainty that the law would be taken to the supreme court.

There's nothing illegal about developing a firearm for your personal use.

From the ATF website here : http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

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.

Since it is generally the reciever of the weapon that has the serial number, and the law specifically states that you can legally assemble (build/create/construct) a reciever...

The limitations here would probably be applied in the case of weapons that would be illegal by their nature (sawed off shotguns, fully auto assault weapons, etc.) under these sections

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 .,

Re:Won't get far

[Noughmad]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I'm not an American, but my view about them (which is mostly from Slashdot) is that the most conservative and restrictive (i.e. the ones pushing various censorship acts) and the same ones who oppose gun control. If printing your own weapons becomes possible, Americans won't allow shutting down the maker community simply because it's a form of gun control.

Re:Won't get far

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Hmm... so, rail guns wouldn't be regulated, as they use magnetism/electricity to motivate the projectile? Interesting...

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 .

Note use of the words, 'from imported parts.'

Nothing in either of those paragraphs makes the indication that machining a full-auto rifle yourself is verboten.

Re:Won't get far

[Feyshtey]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.

Re:Won't get far

[Broken scope]

That's because fully automatic weapons are regulated by other laws.

Re:Won't get far

[lister king of smeg]

(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.

what defines a

any destructive device.

would it include bombs they are destructive?

Re:Won't get far

[CanHasDIY]

Ah, thanks for the clarification (an interesting aside, ever look at the list of what the gov't considers a "destructive device?" Good for a chuckle).

Still wondering about the rail gun, though...

Re:Won't get far

[Feyshtey]

I'm guessing the regulation of a rail gun would fall into categories based on scale, both the size of the projectile and the potential destructive force.

Handheld rail gun (um, right) shooting a projectile the size of a rifle round that will go through a cinderblock? Fine?

Something that will launch a volkswagen downrange at a speed that will turn a tank into a puddle of plasma? Not so fine.

Re:Won't get far

[moeinvt]

To quote Heinlein:

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I'm guessing that a good 75-80% of Americans fall into the former category. The dichotomy of "liberals" and "conservatives" just defines "how" and in what ways they want other people to be controlled.

On this issue, you're unfortunately correct. Many people who would vocally defend firearms freedom would be happy to ban same sex marriage and burning the American flag.

Re:Won't get far

[Jeng]

I think as long as it is semi-automatic and you don't sell it you should be ok.

Though if you make a really powerful one, they may decide it violates other unspecified laws and take it away.

Re:Won't get far

[Feyshtey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

Bombs, mortars, etc., are regulated as Title II weapons and are strictly prohibited without the proper registration, heavy background check, and special taxation. Generally to people like registered weaponsmiths and law enforcement.

Re:Won't get far

[pjt33]

What about sub-prime mortgages?

Re:Won't get far

[CanHasDIY]

I'm guessing the regulation of a rail gun would fall into categories based on scale, both the size of the projectile and the potential destructive force.

Though I see where you're coming from, I was specifically asking about current regulation that would cover 'destructive devices' powered by electro-magnetism. I wonder, would they be subject to current legislation regulating air-powered weapons? Admittedly, my knowledge of non-firearm projectile weapons regulation is severely lacking.

Something that will launch a volkswagen downrange at a speed that will turn a tank into a puddle of plasma? Not so fine.

Don't know about anyone else, but the image that sentence places in my mind is some seriously hilarious shit; well done.

Re:Won't get far

[CanHasDIY]

Though if you make a really powerful one, they may decide it violates other unspecified laws and take it away.

I just can't imagine...

Re:Won't get far

[swillden]

I'm not an American, but my view about them (which is mostly from Slashdot) is that the most conservative and restrictive (i.e. the ones pushing various censorship acts) and the same ones who oppose gun control.

Nah. There is significant overlap between those two groups, but there are plenty of gun control opponents who are social liberals.

If printing your own weapons becomes possible, Americans won't allow shutting down the maker community simply because it's a form of gun control.

That I agree with. Most conservatives would oppose it as a form of gun control. Liberals would find themselves in a quandary and some would fall one way, some another. Libertarians and constitutionalists would oppose it on multiple grounds. Socialists would support it, by and large. The result is that those in favor would be a small, mix of particularly-fearful conservatives, strongly anti-gun liberals and socialists. And they'd be vastly outnumbered. IMNSHO, of course.

Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a project for law students? Are they trying to create something that will produce future clients?

Re:Strange

[firex726]

Yea, I hope they are working with some Engineering students, otherwise they are liable to kill themselves.

Re:Strange

[jxander]

This is a project for law students?

... they are liable to kill themselves.

I fail to see the downside.

Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where on earth can you buy bullets and not buy guns to go with them? Unless there is also 3D-pritable bullets and gunpowder, I'm not sure how this is useful.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[beschra]

Bullets are easy to get and require no background check, etc. And even if it's not 'useful', it's a pretty fun project.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cheaper, faster, and paperwork-free.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[PortHaven]

You can make black powder (so long as you have access to chickens), and mold lead ball...or even use chunks of rock/quartz.

Just saying..

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[glueball]

Bullets can easily be cast.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Overzeetop]

I understand that - if you have the right contacts - there is a group of loosely associated, mini-nation states in one part of the world where they have permanent bazaars/markets where the shelves are lined with all kinds of ammunition. They'll even sell you the gear to make your own. You just walk up, prove that any one of those mini-nations has authorized you to drive a car, and off you go with as much ammo as you can afford, or with up to 25 pounds of black powder. On occasion, several of these nations hold temporary bazaars in large warehouse-like buildings where you can go in and trade the local currency for all sorts of weapons - no questions asked.

Just be careful if you go there; there's a lot of crazy shit that goes on.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not easy to get in Canada. You need a Firearms license to purchase them.

AC

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[genkernel]

Where on earth can you buy bullets and not buy guns to go with them? Unless there is also 3D-pritable bullets and gunpowder, I'm not sure how this is useful.

It is easy enough to buy bullets,even with gun regulations. Sure if guns are completely banned in some places, it will be moderately difficult to acquire ammo. However, most places in Canada and the US only have gun-registries. For instance, handguns where I am here have to be stored in a secure location, separate from ammo, and you have to call the police if you want to take it anywhere (and tell them you are going to a shooting range). Getting ammo isn`t a problem, its getting a gun that the police cannot track as easily.

Even in places where ammo is not available, it may not be illegal and can be safely acquired via a vacation to the US. Finally, should ammo be illegal, it is much easier to sell bullets discreetly than guns. Seriously, how are you going to prevent someone from, say, hiding a bullet in a computer case and shipping it (or even putting it through checked baggage).

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Broken scope]

Or you can just go to bass pro shop.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[houstonbofh]

Just be careful if you go there; there's a lot of crazy shit that goes on.

Naa... Most of the crazy shit only goes on in that one court in east Texas. The gun shows are much more sane.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[SuricouRaven]

Lead-ball is fine if you're happy with a muzzle-loader one-shot. Modern bullets with the charge and projectile in one tidy case are trickier.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[mjr167]

I wish I had mod points...

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because that shit works on Star Trek, doesn't mean it'll do anything in reality other than blow your arms off ;)

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

Not easy to get in Canada. You need a Firearms license to purchase them.

Wow..that's one major way it sucks to be Canadian.

Where I live, I don't have to have any kind of license or registration to buy or own a gun or ammunition.

The govt. has no knowledge of my arsenal...guns bought privately from private citizens with cash, ammo bought with cash. No registration....no paper trail.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

For instance, handguns where I am here have to be stored in a secure location, separate from ammo, and you have to call the police if you want to take it anywhere (and tell them you are going to a shooting range). Getting ammo isn`t a problem, its getting a gun that the police cannot track as easily.

Wow..where the fuck to YOU live where your gun restrictions are so horrible?!?!?

Where I live...the govt has no knowlege of my gun collection, all bought with cash from other private individuals....and I buy ammo with cash.

No gun safe restrictions I've ever heard of, etc....and if I want to go to the gun range, I just unload the gun, and put it in the trunk of my car, etc....

But I have no requirement to register any guns I buy.....??

I'm guessing you must not be from the US..I've never heard of such restrictive gun laws in the US..are you in Canada?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[jmorris42]

> Just be careful if you go there; there's a lot of crazy shit that goes on.

Nah, a gun show is probably the safest place you could be. Have you EVER heard of anyone trying to start anything at one? Just how much of one's brain has to be malfunctioning for a person to pick a gun show as the place they want to go postal? What are the odds on that much of a human brain being broke and yet still retain enough functionality to pull off the act?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

On occasion, several of these nations hold temporary bazaars in large warehouse-like buildings where you can go in and trade the local currency for all sorts of weapons - no questions asked.

To the bolded bit: not so much. If the seller is a dealer--and the majority of them are--you have to go through the same paperwork (form 4473) and background check as if you'd bought it at the store. If the seller is a private individual, yes, you can buy without the check, but then, you can do that any time, gun show or not. Also, if the gun is of certain categories (short-barreled rifle/shotgun, machine gun, destructive device, etc.) it has to go through the background check, other paperwork, and an expensive tax stamp regardless of whether it's a dealer or private seller.

The "gun show loophole" is a myth.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

It's comforting to know you can kill a person without being able to be traced, huh?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be careful about that. I got robocalled by a group out of Oregon which was trying to get the FDA to register gunpowder as a controlled substance like marijuana or cocaine.

If gunpowder is put on the scheduled substances list, pretty much all other gun laws go out the window, because guns then become "drug paraphernalia" and then are swiped on the next sweep.

It wouldn't take much to regulate ammo, and gunpowder is impossible to make without precise machinery (provided you want stuff that actually might have a reliable pressure level and not take your barrel out, or not fire at all.)

So, while people rail about guns and such... they ignore the fact that it could be an entity completely unrelated to normal firearms regulation whom can remove all rights to gun ownership.

Constitution? Nothing in there pertains to gunpowder and its legality to possess/use.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cyberchondriac]

Exactly this. In the early eighties, I used to work in a dept store's sporting goods section, where they sold ammo, but no guns.
I thought it was ironic at the time, but the customers only needed to show me an ID, like a driver's license, to prove they were 18 or older, to buy the ammo. I, on the other hand, as an employee who only sold the stuff and didn't actually use it (I'm not anti-gun, I just didn't have any guns), had to go downtown and get fingerprinted. It was like the same way that cops differentiate between drug users and their "pushers"; they're more strict with the pushers.
Come to think of it, they may as well merge the ATF with the DEA (alcohol and tobacco are drugs too) and get it over with.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not easy to get in Canada. You need a Firearms license to purchase them.

Wow..that's one major way it sucks to be Canadian.

Where I live, I don't have to have any kind of license or registration to buy or own a gun or ammunition.

The govt. has no knowledge of my arsenal...guns bought privately from private citizens with cash, ammo bought with cash. No registration....no paper trail.

Getting a firearms licence in Canada isn't difficult at all if you are't a convict and all you care to own are 'standard' rifles and shotguns. (Pretty much any non-auto with a long barrel is fine. Even battle rifles fall into the 'un-restricted' category and you don't have to register your un-restricted firearms.)

The license is mostly just a "Are you sure you know what you're doing with this?" roadblock - the hardest part of getting it is just passing a standard firearms safety course.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[firex726]

Yea, do they even check for ID when buying bullets?
Don't think they have asked me anything other then for money.

Plus they're going to set it for a .22.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[lyran74]

The obsession of some Americans with owning arms strikes much of the rest of the world as strange. It's a holdover from a revolutionary era. The net result of increased gun ownership is increased gun deaths.

Your sense of security from your ammunition is delusional.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tom17]

I'm curious about this mentality.
Firstly, I must put forward that I am making the following assumption - You will claim that you need your firearms as self defense (This seems to be the typical pro-gun reasoning for needing firearms), or you like to shoot for recreational or hunting purposes.

If any of the above were the case, then what would be wrong with needing a licence? What, exactly, are you trying to hide? The way I see it, if you were going to use your firearm for any of them, then you would not have a problem with it being registered.

Unless you use your firearm for more questionable activities (muggings.killing sprees,burglary) in which case a rational person would be GLAD of regulation regarding the sale of ammunition?

So tell me, what *do* you use your guns for and why are you so pleased that you don't need a licence to do so? I am just curious as I do not understand.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[hawkeey]

there is a group of loosely associated, mini-nation states in one part of the world

Thank God that I live in the United States of America :)

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, it sounds like NYC or Chicago, possibly New Jersey. I know I have heard of several locales with laws like that although I do not remember which ones fit his specific listing.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[ColdWetDog]

The govt. has no knowledge of my arsenal...guns bought privately from private citizens with cash, ammo bought with cash. No registration....no paper trail.

Yes, please keep believing that, citizen.

Be seeing you!

A Public Service message from your friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cffrost]

Unless there is also 3D-pritable bullets and gunpowder, I'm not sure how this is useful.

I wonder if plasticized nitrocellulose could be "printed" (not necessarily by a 3D printer) (or at least spray-formed) into a serviceable propellant. Plastic bullets sound feasible, but I have grave doubts about plastic shell casings and primers.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[mjr167]

Around here you can go to Wal-Mart and buy you shotgun, your ammo, your shovel, and your rug all at one store.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[camperdave]

You do not need a firearms license to purchase bullets in Canada. You may be asked for ID to show that you are over 18, but that's about it.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[mjr167]

Since you have nothing to hide, can we listen to your phone conversations and read your emails?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

That whooshing sound you hear is not the sound of a misfire in your 3D printed zipgun.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tmosley]

Yup, ask any member of the various police forces in burgeoning police states throughout the West.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tmosley]

I wonder if your study included the decreased likelihood of being the victim of any form of genocide in its statistics?

Probably not.

Eurotrash go a couple of generations without a genocide in their specific country, and they think they can never happen again. Guess they didn't pay much attention to the war in Serbia. But hey, Serbs are subhuman, so fuck em, right?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tmosley]

Guns are also used for self defense from governments. Being on a government list makes it easier to have those guns confiscated, as happened in Germany shortly before the genocides began (among many other countries).

Just because the world is fairly peaceful today doesn't mean it will always be that way.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tmosley]

Actually, it does work, and quite well and easily. Black powder is not at all complicated, and has a known amount of force behind it, and burns at a known rate (controlled by the composition).

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[moeinvt]

More guns = more GUN deaths, but not necessarily more deaths, and certainly not more violent crime.

The majority of GUN deaths in the USA are suicides. Well over 15,000 per year. Banning guns obviously doesn't mean that all, or even most of those suicides could be prevented. That's why focusing only on GUN deaths is an absurdity.

Firearms are used in self defense approximately as often as they are used in crime. Defensive firearms use rarely involves shots being fired, and even more rarely results in death. Doesn't make for good national news.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tmosley]

At that point, you would do well to move to a Metal Storm approach.

Plastic bullets are good for less than lethal applications, but not much else.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Jeng]

Are you kidding?

If I wanted to go out with a bang a gun show would definitely be the place to do it.

You shoot someone and all of a sudden EVERYONE has a gun in their hands looking for someone else with a gun in their hands.

It may be suicidal, but don't tell me it would not be a clusterfuck of epic proportions as everyone tries to be a hero.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "gun show loophole" is a myth.

No. The "gun show loophole" is a politically-convenient misnomer for "private-sale loophole" -- which you can't advocate closing under its true name without making it clear just how little respect for personal property rights you have.

You can, however, agitate with the false name to lock down private sales at gun shows, and if you get that, you can proceed to claim that everyone is circumventing the letter of the law and making the equivalent of "highly-illegal private sales at gun shows" at tailgates in the gun show parking lot, and various other places, and finally get the wholesale private-sale ban you want -- because now you're not restricting law-abiding citizens from free exchange of goods, but targeting evildoers skating by on a technicality.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[jxander]

The "gun show loophole" is a myth.

Yes and no. There's nothing legally different about Ye Olde Faire Grounds where the gunshow is taking place, as compared to my garage, or the Walmart parking lot. However if you were looking for a place with many private sellers, trying to find the highest possibility of turning up a shady character, well... you're going to have a LOT better odds at the gunshow than in my garage.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tom17]

Because communication is the same thing as a gun. Right.

I assume then that you have also have issue with needing a driving licence?

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[shutdown -p now]

prove that any one of those mini-nations has authorized you to drive a car

Do you even need that? Certainly not for online purchases, at least.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[swillden]

You have obviously never been to a gun show.

Gun shows require that all guns be unloaded at all times, and most even require zip ties or similar be passed through the actions and closed. There are lots of guns, and plenty of ammunition, but all of them are at least 30 seconds from being usable.

You also haven't paid any attention to the news reports of real-world experience with civilians responding to an active shooter. As far as I can tell there hasn't been a single case of a bystander being injured in such a situation. Police officers are an order of magnitude worse when it comes to safely ending such situations.

The fact is that very few gun owners are inclined to try to be "heros". In fact many are completely unwilling to use their firearms except to defend themselves and their families. Others are willing to try to protect strangers, but only when the situation is very clear-cut and they are sure they can do so without injuring others. Given that I teach concealed carry classes, I've had the opportunity to discuss these issues in depth with many prospective armed citizens. Hundreds of them. There have been a couple who seemed to have a hero complex -- both were pursuing Criminal Justice degrees with the intention to become police officers, and one of them was pissed when I refused to certify him because his attitude was too aggressive -- but all of the rest express varying degrees of concern about the many and serious risks involved in using a gun "for real" and would only do so at great need and with great care.

BTW, I believe that is the reason for the much higher rate of badly-aimed shots by police officers. It's not that they're less skilled with their firearms, in fact on average they're probably slightly better, and their skill range is not nearly as wide (among civilians you have everything from barely-ever-fired-a-gun to IDPA/IPSC champions, who are insanely good), but police are more likely to use their guns in marginal situations. Part of that, I think, is the duty they feel to respond, a duty civilians don't have, and part is the fact that the legal system and their departments will back them up in ways it will not do for civilians, so they have much lower risk.

I do grant that the students in a concealed carry class may be more serious about it than the random selection of people at a gun show, and the students may even be putting on a more serious face for the instructor (because I'm pretty damned clear about the seriousness of the topics), but in my opinion, as a person who's been around guns and gun owners my whole life, and who's attended more gun shows than I could count, and who's discussed these issues with perhaps thousands of others, the scenario you describe is vanishingly unlikely.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[WillAdams]

Ammunition is straight-forward:

The Do-it-Yourself Gunpowder Cookbook by Don McLean http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873646754

Cast Bullets by E. H. Harrison http://www.amazon.com/Cast-Bullets-E-H-Harrison/dp/B0007ASOHO

You can turn the cases from brass stock on a lathe.

TM 31-210 Improvised Munition Handbook has instructions on reloading.

William

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[mirix]

You need a PAL to acquire cartridges, since 1995 or 96. I think for muzzleloaders it probably only applies to the powder, not the bullets.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

If any of the above were the case, then what would be wrong with needing a licence? What, exactly, are you trying to hide? The way I see it, if you were going to use your firearm for any of them, then you would not have a problem with it being registered.

I see the question as the other way around.

What business does the government have needing to know if I have guns or not? If I'm not committing crimes with them...they have no need to know if I'm armed or not.

Remember, in the US, the individual is supposed to have the rights to start with...the govt. is supposed to have limited, narrowly enumerated powers and responsibilities.

If I'm breaking no laws, harming no one...the the govt really doesn't need to know anything about me other than maybe to collect taxes I owe.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

I assume then that you have also have issue with needing a driving licence?

Not the same thing.

The drivers license is a license to operate a vehicle on the road along with other drivers at the same time. If you only drive your car on non-public roads, you don't need a drivers license.

I don't operate my guns in public....I don't go around firing my weapon around in the city, I use it on gun ranges, or out on private property safely away from others.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

A Public Service message from your friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Dunno why you'd say that...there is no national law requiring registration.

It is up to the states if they require this...none of the states I've lived in require me to notify the govt in any form or fashion of any weapons I own (non-automatic).

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Jeng]

Thank you for that very reasonable response, and you are correct that I have not been to a gun show.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tom17]

Then, again, if that is your usage case, I don't see the harm in having them registered.

For the greater good and all that :)

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tom17]

OK, I think I am starting to understand the mentality now and where you are coming from.

But do the horrendous side effects of having gun ubiquity not change your stance on it, even a little bit?

I am all for doing what I want when I want as long as I am not harming others, but when the subject at hand becomes an epidemic problem in the hands of the unwashed masses, I accept that said thing needs to be regulated.

There are some fringe areas that I see regulation poking its head into in the near future and it's quite frankly pissing me off. But if it's genuinely warranted then I will just have to humbly accept it and get on with life.

I could be a bit more pro not-need-gun-and-ammo-licencing if the gun issues were more of a fringe thing than they are in that country.

Thanks for giving me insight into your reasoning rather than trying to troll me :)

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[tom17]

To expand on this. I am going to be pissed off if I ever need to be licenced to do things like: DIY 3D printing, home electronics, DIY (Already pissed off with some licencing requirements there), car DIY, etc etc etc.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

But do the horrendous side effects of having gun ubiquity not change your stance on it, even a little bit?

Not sure what you mean here.

There aren't really any horrendous side effects I know of with gun ownership and use by law abiding citizens. If you're talking about criminals using guns...well, they are criminals by definition..and won't observe the laws. The only way you could prevent this, is to ban guns entirely, and remove them all.....this isn't feasible and wont' work.

The only thing gun restrictions do...is give law abiding citizens a hassle.

At least, that's my take on it.

I don't see a problem really...most criminal activity that I hear of, is thugs killing other thugs...and well, I don't really have a problem with them taking each other out. Saves the taxpayer money on prison time for them.

I'm guessing you're not in the US. I can only imagine from your comments that you must get the impression that all the streets over here are one, long continuous shooting gallery, and that you have to duck for cover and run to go from store to car.

:)

Truth is...the avg person over here, likely will never see nor be near a gun when it goes off, unless it is at a firing range. I've never seen nor heard a gun go off in the city or anywhere I've lived....and I've lived in the south in the US, where I know every one of my friends is armed to the teeth...gun closets of friends if you opened the door, I've literally seen guns falling out on the floor before. I know lots of people that always have at least one gun on them in the car when driving..etc...and yet, again, I don't know anyone that has been shot. No one I know has been exposed to gun violence first hand...etc.

Hope that helps...

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[cayenne8]

But how is having them registered by me...going to help in any way...prevent crime with said weapon?

All it does is hamper my freedom. The criminal, by definition, is not going to observe the law...he won't register his weapons....

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around here you can go to Wal-Mart and buy you shotgun, your ammo, your shovel, and your rug all at one store.

If you can do that at a drive-through window then the American Dream(TM) has been achieved.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, you should take that suicide mission to an NRA convention event in a state with liberal concealed carry laws. Now THAT would be a clusterfuck of epic proportion.

To quote MIB: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." It only takes a handful of marginal ones for all hell to break loose. I can pretty much guarantee you that the prime shooter won't get out alive, but it would be a crazy 7 minutes. Oh - for bonus points you need to convince two friends to go with you and attack from the other side of the hall.

Just one bullet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could build that for under $10 at home depot already. It's called a zip or pipe gun. More than one bullet is the hard part.

Re:Just one bullet?

[jxander]

Which is what makes this whole ordeal more of a science project than an attempt to circumvent laws. You can build better quality stuff, cheaper, with junk at any hardware store. You can circumvent laws by 3D-Printing the lower receiver and using standard metal parts everywhere else.

The only reason to try and 3D-Print the whole thing, is to simply see if it can be done.

Great

[DrXym]

Maybe they should accept plans for entirely printable coffins while they're at it.

Re:Great

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Too big. You have to print them in sections and construct the pieces. Sort of goes against the spirit of having a makerbot in the first place.

Re:Great

[Anarchduke]

But a printable Cremation Urn is totally doable.

Barrel?

[MetalliQaZ]

How exactly are they planning to 3D print a barrel that can withstand real ammunition? How are they planning to rifle it?

Also, God help us if this ever became a reality.

Re:Barrel?

[Bigby]

3D print the rifling. The barrel isn't so much an issue as the firing point at the base of the barrel. If the projectile is moving straight, the barrel is just a guide with that takes on some friction (especially with rifling).

Re:Barrel?

[MarkGriz]

Right, because "real" guns are oh so hard to come by.

Re:Barrel?

[houstonbofh]

Also, God help us if this ever became a reality.

Because no criminals have guns now. And just buying one on the black market will never be easier than learning on to make one yourself...

Re:Barrel?

[SuricouRaven]

3D printing would actually make the rifling very easy. Trivial, even. Making the barrel durable, though, is not. With a really tough plastic I can imagine getting a few shots off, but the gun won't last long. If all you want is something to shoot muggers with, that will be enough. If it's printable, you can produce replacement barrels easily.

Re:Barrel?

[Sqr(twg)]

Also, God help us if this ever became a reality.

Actually, I'm tinking of donating. If we can get the lunatics to make plastic guns and blow their hands off, then much fewer innocent people will get shot.

Admittedly a bit messier than gun control laws, but it may also be more effective.

Re:Barrel?

[jandrese]

As I understand it, they're only printing the receiver. The barrel, firing chamber, pin, etc... can all be bought legally as parts, only the receiver is restricted because that's where the serial number is.

So really it's just a project to make untraceable guns easier to acquire. Yay.

Re:Barrel?

[retep]

You don't have to 3d print a barrel if instead you 3d print a machine to make a barrel. I do know one of the first (the first?) machine tools ever designed were for making gun barrels. I'm sure building that machine would be a lot easier if you can 3d print all, or almost all, the parts for it. The parts of that machine that need to be accurate can then use off the shelf mechanical parts like precision guide rails are readily available and standardized, with the 3d printer providing the "stuff" required to put everything in the right places.

You ever heard of the Gingery Series? It's essentially a how-to manual on bootstrapping your own machine shop from scratch; at the end of the process you'll have an accurate metal cutting lathe and mill. It's quite reliant on time-consuming metal casting, as well as precision scraping to get the accuracy needed in a machine tool. With 3d printing you can replace the metal casting with printed parts, and the scraping can be replaced with pre-made linear rails and ballscrew assemblies. A 3d printing bootstrapped gun barrel making machine would essentially be a purpose-built version of this concept.

Re:Barrel?

[LongearedBat]

Why print receivers? There are lots of potential bullet receivers wandering about schools and shopping centres. No need to print even more, is there?

Re:Barrel?

[Dekker3D]

Lost wax style metal casting? I think it'd be easy to make a printer for the wax (or whatever the "lost wax" in that concept actually is these days) and then use that to make metal barrels of your own design.

Still not exactly mass-production.

Re:Barrel?

[Anonymous Coward]

3D print the rifling. The barrel isn't so much an issue as the firing point at the base of the barrel. If the projectile is moving straight, the barrel is just a guide with that takes on some friction (especially with rifling).

The bullet creates a seal and there is a high amount of presure behind it, which accelerateds the bullet as it travels through the barrel. You would need a plastic that could withstand this pressure, the friction and several hundred degrees of heat.

Re:Barrel?

[cyberchondriac]

Agreed. And I'll just toss in, for good measure, it's not like people couldn't kill each other wholesale before the advent of firearms. Bows/arrows, crossbows/bolts, knives, swords, axes, spears, clubs, etc.. Guns just make it more convenient. Over 3,000 people were murdered on 9-11 and not one shot was fired, far as I know. Someone could probably take out 20 people at once on a crowded intersection by mowing them down with their car.

Now, when we get to the point where people can start 3D printing nukes... maybe in 50 years, well.. I'll probably be dead by then anyway. Good luck! :-)

Re:Barrel?

[slinches]

Easy, DMLS. It'd probably cost many times more than just buying a gun, but it would be able to print a finished steel barrel, rifling included.

Re:Barrel?

[gman003]

Random idea: 3D-print the mold for the barrel, pour molten steel into mold, allow to cool, then heat the thing until the mold plastic melts, leaving behind the barrel.

That's probably not how you make a *proper* barrel (ie. you won't be winning any awards for marksmanship), but that should suffice for at least a .22LR.

Re:Barrel?

[tmosley]

Yup, going to need a laser scinterer at least, which is much more robust, as it can make any shape you want out of METAL. Even then, I don't know if the barrel would be resilient enough to withstand a bunch of bullets going through it.

Re:Barrel?

[tmosley]

You really see criminals doing this?

You have a strange, sad little mind.

Re:Barrel?

[shutdown -p now]

the barrel is just a guide with that takes on some friction

Do you understand how a gun works? Hint: a bullet is not a rocket; it's propelled by the pressure of the expanding gases behind it in the barrel. I suggest you look up the pressure standards for various popular calibers, and consider what kind of plastic you'd need to make a barrel out of to withstand them.

Re:Barrel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, what?

If the 3D printed mold has a higher melting point than steel, you can cast fine, but then the barrel melts when you melt the mold.

If the 3D printed mold has a lower melting point than steel, the mold melts when you pour the steel.

Print a mold, use it to cast a wax pattern, and use that with to make a lost-wax mold -- it's called investment casting, and is the only feasible way to go from ABS to metal with any sort of accuracy..

Also, you can't cast steel. (It can be done, but is not for amateurs.) Cast iron is plausible, but is a sucky barrel material. I'd say buy some 1/8" schedule 80 pipe, and cast an aluminum sleeve (possibly including receiver) over that using lost-wax. Ream and/or rifle as desired.

Re:Barrel?

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't have to withstand a bunch of bullets. It needs to withstand one bullet, for long enough for said bullet to leave.

Re:Barrel?

[Sqr(twg)]

Read my post again. I said lunatics not criminals. Obviously there's an overlap, but the non-lunatic criminals will get real guns regardless.

Re:Barrel?

[tsa]

On the planet I live on, which is called Europe, you can't buy guns in shops like on the planet USA. So our politicians, who of course don't even have a clue about the existence of 3D printing, should be extremely concerned.

Re:Barrel?

[Bigby]

The whole barrel doesn't experience the maximum pressure. Only the the firing point takes on most of the pressure.

Re:Barrel?

[tmosley]

If that is all you want, then you could easily make your own gun for like $10. You need a pipe, a paperclip and a rubber band.

Re:Barrel?

[SuricouRaven]

If possible, you want a gun that isn't prone to shoot searing hot gas jets back into the face of the user.

Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Space cowboy]

Is /. *really* that hard up for page-views ?

Do you *really* want someone to come up with a way to make a plastic gun ? I personally think the plastic wouldn't be strong enough, but I don't see any reason to tempt fate by saying it can't be done. Just like rebar strengthens concrete way beyond what you'd expect, there probably is a way.

I guess I'm not entirely happy with the idea that any moron who would have been denied a gun permit (even in the "sure! go kill someone" gun-happy USA) could possibly get a reprap or ordbot for a few hundred dollars and go print themselves their own damn killing device.

Simon. Not impressed.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately censorship won't do much to stop them. Technology advances and you can't close the lid on Pandora's Box.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[jxander]

The legal ramifications of 3D printing guns are already upon us. TFS references an older article where someone printed out a Lower Receiver, which IS the gun, legally speaking.

This article is much more about "can we do this impossible thing." Can you 3D-Print a barrel that doesn't melt after a few rounds? Can you 3D-Print some kind of recoil absorption method (most fire-arms use metal springs)? ...a firing pin that strikes a primer with enough force to fire? ...a bolt strong enough to take the impact, or possibly an advanced recoil absorption method to reduce the strain on your bolt...

A lot of hurdles to cross before a gun can be fully 3D-Printed. And a lot of wider ramifications as to the 3D-Printing world, if those hurdles can be cleared.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[WillDraven]

I would agree if you had to do something violent to be denied a gun permit. Unfortunately in the USA you can lose your right to bear arms for any felony, many of which have nothing at all to do with being violent or dangerous.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[jmorris42]

News flash. If you, me or anyone with average intelligence goes postal lack of a gun won't lower the body count much.

Look at the recent nut who went off at the Batman premiere. He left bombs in his apartment. Had he carried those and lobbed them into the packed audience it would have been at least as deadly, probably more. So hearing that, bed wetting types like yourself will next work to ban any access to chemicals that can go boom, right? You do know that would ban almost everything useful, right?

Control the criminals and the mentally ill, not household cleaners, not knives, not firearms.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Alwin Henseler]

I personally think the plastic wouldn't be strong enough, but I don't see any reason to tempt fate by saying it can't be done.

I do: when Darwin weeds out 3D printer owners with bad performing gun designs, then chances are those 3D printers will find a new owner. Likely smarter people who have better uses for a 3D printer than making guns.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[houstonbofh]

Anyone can get a gun in Mexico right now, and they have restrictive laws and few repraps...

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's a damned shame that censorship isn't effective in fortifying your own sensibilities.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[girlintraining]

I guess I'm not entirely happy with the idea that any moron who would have been denied a gun permit (even in the "sure! go kill someone" gun-happy USA) could possibly get a reprap or ordbot for a few hundred dollars and go print themselves their own damn killing device.

That same "moron" can go to the supermarket and buy a dozen or so different ingredients needed to make a bomb too. Should we ban supermarkets? There's always going to be a small minority of people that, for whatever reason, become violent. Your discomfort and unhappiness with this fact notwithstanding, there is no way to prevent this. There are, however, ways to minimize the damage.

It does not bother me that someone can manufacture a plastic gun in their own home. They could own a home full of guns for all I care. They could, in fact, make their house out of nothing but guns, and carry a dozen handguns around while they do their local shopping. Guns by themselves are not the problem -- the problem comes when the guy carrying a dozen handguns is the only guy like that in a crowded place when he snaps and decides to go all murder-happy.

I have never felt safer anywhere on this earth than on a military base where people carried their weapons openly and were trained in how to use them. And I have never felt less safe than walking around on the streets after dark in poverty-striken neighborhoods, because I know there's a lot of people there who haven't had any training and think a gun is the answer to all their problems. And still, guns aren't the problem here -- it's poverty, systemic injustice, racism, etc., that all create a factory pumping out desperate people.

Nobody needs a gun, or a bomb, to kill you. With training, you could be killed by someone with their bare hands and there would be nothing you could do to stop that either. Rather than sit there like a limp dick and be helpless, why not take steps to defend yourself? Take some self defense classes. Buy a gun, or a knife, or a tazer... whatever you feel would help with this obvious insecurity you have. I am not afraid of a guy with a plastic gun, anymore than I'm afraid of a guy with a real gun -- I know the odds of dying due to violent assault, and in fact my personal risk is very much higher than yours because I'm a member of a minority group that experiences the highest rates of suicide, murder, and violent attack in this country. I do not carry a gun, a a knife, or a tazer. I have been trained enough to know what to do if anyone ever presents a weapon -- regardless of the material it is made of. I feel totally safe, not because I have a weapon, but because I am a weapon.

If everybody was trained, and was given a sidearm, like many countries where military service is compulsory, this wouldn't be a problem. Guy goes crazy in a public place, and a dozen other guys with military training fill him full of bullets. 3 people are killed or injured, and live goes on... not this "Guy goes crazy in a public place, dozens dead or injured, more killed when they storm the place to free the hostages" bullshit that happens now.

It's obvious you can't stop someone who really wants a gun from getting one: They're easy to design, make, and use. It's a very simple mechanical device. So rather than invest an inordinate amount of resources so that the general population can remain ignorant and defenseless, why not train them and give them ready access to firearms? Being trained and able to defend yourself is a far superior deterrent to crime, and as a bonus, it's also a better use of our tax dollars.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[cayenne8]

I guess I'm not entirely happy with the idea that any moron who would have been denied a gun permit

Where do you live that requires a gun permit to own or buy a gun?

Not in any of the states I've lived in.....no wait period either if you buy used from another private individual...and with cash...no paper trail.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Anyone can get a gun in Mexico right now...

Yup. Just wait for the delivery from ATF.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[nibbles2004]

"Control the criminals and the mentally ill, not household cleaners, not knives, not firearms."

your Logic is flawed, James Holmes (batman premier) had only a summons for speeding previously. So how exactly are you meant to control him, the majority of these mass shooting's by definition usually occur with individual's with no serious priors. They tend to only get to do it 1 time. So for these crime's to be prevented you would need in effect 'minority report', you would to incarcerate individuals based on traits that could lead to that kind of behavior, i.e all Kids who are cruel to animals would become serial killers. So aside's from the obvious civil liberty issue's , how do you enforce that on a whole population, any suspicious behavior and your in jail.

People will always try to harm others, the key is to try and restrict the mean's to which they can do effectively, especially on a large scale, using you logic individuals' should be entitled to carry grenades, bomb's, chemical, nuclear weapons, why not, there is fundamentally no difference.

Also this notion of the people being allowed to protect themselves against a Tyrannical Government, really who do think would win a country's Armed force's, trained over years, with Air support, Intel, Huge Logistics or a militia with plastic guns.History shows that these militia's only have a chance if there is external armed support, or the government is unwilling to go the extra mile. In this scenario's the US government would go B52 on yer arse, and not pander to popular opinion like in Iraq. If a Government is Tyrannical and fight's it own people, then plastic guns wont help a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
look at the countries which the highest murder rates, and they all have easy access to Gun's.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[girlintraining]

Control the criminals and the mentally ill, not household cleaners, not knives, not firearms.

Small caveat: Everyone is mentally ill. I can give you a psychology test and find something wrong with you. In fact, psychologists become suspicious when there testing doesn't find anything wrong -- that usually indicates someone is manipulating the test results. What's even more damning is that the only difference I've found between people who are in-patient, and the general population, is that one is surrounded by walls and the other isn't.

People like you who segment themselves away from "the criminals" or "the mentally ill", labor under the delusion that they aren't, and/or couldn't become, part of that group. But it takes very little to become a criminal, or mentally ill. In the right circumstances, anyone can be a murderer, or become mentally ill, or any variation on the theme therein. So rather than engaging in this ego-protection, you need to admit that the problem isn't only the people, but the situations that create them.

In every violent act where a gun is used, someone's always there to say that we should ban guns to prevent it... but very few people say "We should have helped this person sooner." If you want to stop violence, understand the reasons for it, rather than just advocating bandaid solutions to it.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[jmorris42]

> Logic is flawed, ***** ****** (batman premier)

Lets not mention this jackass's name. Why make the killer a household word while we all forget the victims before the funerals are done. Let us not implant the notion into the unstable that a sure fire way to get your fifteen minutes of fame is to shoot up a public place.

> So how exactly are you meant to control him...

He was seeing a shrink and that story is still ongoing. But no, we probably can't stop every disgruntled grad student who suddenly burns out and decides to go violent.

But most people who die from violent crimes are killed by people who aren't committing their very first violent felony. We stopped locking people up unless they are obviously a menace to others and all too often not even then... until they make the evening news.

But the best way to discourage these incidents is to end the shooting galleries. With the exception of Rep. Giffords all these mass shootings of the last fifty plus years have been in 'gun free zones.' Nobody seriously questions the wisdom of restricting guns in some places, like a courthouse. Because emotions are high and there are plenty of armed LEOs around to keep order. But places like that theater put up the 'no guns' signs and provide zero security. Sue their asses, boycott, whatever it takes to make that insanity end. Mass killings usually don't stop until the 2nd weapon comes into play. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

> look at the countries which the highest murder rates, and they all have easy access to Gun's.

What diseased mind looks at that map and comes to THAT conclusion. The countries in the dark colors are the ones with widespread civil unrest, revolutions, wars, loss of the rule of law, etc. Sure guns aren't legal in Mexico but they are having open battles between rival gangs in daylight, half (or more) of their army is in cahoots with one or more gangs, etc. Central America, South America, Africa, etc. are all battling communist revolutionaries and worse at the moment; violence is just how those guys roll.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[jmorris42]

> Also this notion of the people being allowed to protect themselves against a Tyrannical
> Government, really who do think would win a country's Armed force's, trained over years,
> with Air support, Intel, Huge Logistics or a militia..

Sorry, forgot to eviscerate this one. Do you get cable tv or the Internet on your world? Haven't we been watching exactly what you say can't happen? Does Libya ring any bells? Ok, the ouyside world lent them a hand. So how about Syria? Hell, they overthrew Egypt without even having the running gunfights in the streets and that military dictatorship was armed with American tanks.

This country was founded by ordinary people rising up and defeating the world's leading military power. It can be done, it is a matter of determination. So long as we retain the spirit of revolution we will never be defeated. Not by an outside power and not by our own government. That is why we refuse to surrender our RTKBA.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Plekto]

You don't have to worry much. The first time they try to actually fire it and the chamber fails and blows their hand completely off will be the last time they try to make such a device. Sure, the parts like the stock and trigger assembly and so on can be made out of most anything, but even the smallest rounds are in the 20-25K PSI range. It's simply going to explode as plastics like these machines use are brittle under extreme stress. If you've ever seen Pyrex/plate glass/etc shatter, you have an idea of what will happen. Big nasty razor sharp shards. Metal typically doesn't shatter like this, so it's actually many times more dangerous than a gun out of metal blowing up.

These guys are going to make a plan, get it out to the public, and then some idiot will have his machine calibrated a few thousandths of an inch off, use the wrong plastic, forget to do some step correctly, or any number of a dozen other issues and it'll be a grenade in his face. Then we all suffer as the lawyers get involved to save our kids from themselves.

Just go out to Wal-Mart and get a cheap .22 rifle. Leave this stuff to the pros.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been trained enough to know what to do if anyone ever presents a weapon -- regardless of the material it is made of. I feel totally safe, not because I have a weapon, but because I am a weapon.

You might want to talk to your doctor about adjusting the dosage on your prescription.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[jmorris42]

> In the right circumstances, anyone can be a murderer...

Bullshit. Postmodern twaddle. I might kill ya. But you will be awake, you will be facing me and you will be armed.[1] No, some of us have these things called morals that forbid us from even really considering mass murder and public mayhem.

> So rather than engaging in this ego-protection, you need to admit that
> the problem isn't only the people, but the situations that create them.

Lots of people flunk out of college yet few shoot up the town. This tells me most people are rational and capable of self government. You see one nut and declare everyone is insane and a menace waiting for society to make em go off.

[1] And if you don't recognize that line you can turn in your geek card and leave before you are laughed out.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[girlintraining]

Bullshit. Postmodern twaddle. I might kill ya. But you will be awake, you will be facing me and you will be armed.[1] No, some of us have these things called morals that forbid us from even really considering mass murder and public mayhem.

For you, Denial is just a river in Egypt, huh.

Lots of people flunk out of college yet few shoot up the town. This tells me most people are rational and capable of self government.

Yeah, and lots of people drink tea yet few own a bicycle. This tells me that the sound of purple is capable of tasting lukewarm.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

He also was seeing a shrink, had a record of mental illness, had dropped out of med school with on short notice, the shrink had warned the school about his violent ideation, and he quit his job working on schizophrenia research(guess who is missing some medications!).

Yah, no red flags there.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[tmosley]

Look at Switzerland and say that again.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, having armed military officers present to defend against the crazies worked really well in the Batman shooting.

Meanwhile, you're scared of being in a poor minority area because at any moment you could be shot?

As a sidenote, you do not seem like a sane person. Of course it's hard to make mental diagnoses over the internet, but I honestly don't think a sane person would make a long weird rambling post about guns to Slashdot.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not carry a gun, a a knife, or a tazer. I have been trained enough to know what to do if anyone ever presents a weapon -- regardless of the material it is made of. I feel totally safe, not because I have a weapon, but because I am a weapon.

Get off the computer, dad!

Sorry about that folks -- dad get's a bit rambunctious after he's had a couple of tall boys. I am glad, however, that I got him this computer. Before that, when he got drunk, he step out on the front porch in high tighty-whities and threaten anyone unfortunate enough to be passing by to show them his "weapon".

(counting the hours until I can put him in a retirement home)

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a criminal?

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been trained enough to know what to do if anyone ever presents a weapon -- regardless of the material it is made of. I feel totally safe, not because I have a weapon, but because I am a weapon.

You have swallowed a truckload of weapons-grade bullshido.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[westlake]

Guy goes crazy in a public place, and a dozen other guys with military training fill him full of bullets. 3 people are killed or injured, and live goes on...

Imagine a movie theater.

Dimly lit.

Multichannel sound effects at full volume.

There is a very good chance the killer will be moving up from behind you. He'll be the one wearing body armor and maybe a pack of explosives with a dead man switch. You don't have an aisle seat and your movement is restricted.

Hundreds of people. Some costumed as characters in the film.

It will be something like a miracle if you can correctly identify your target and have a clear shot.

Pull out a gun and everyone around you will panic and you become a target yourself.

Remember you are not acting as part of a team here. Your buddies are elsewhere. No one knows you. No one trusts you.

You've lost the initiative.

You are alone and you are vulnerable.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[putzin]

Your first three paragraphs are well written and smack of good, rational thinking. The second two paragraphs are well written, but are a different narrative than the first three. It is important to note that crazy people are still well versed in being crazy even in nations where compulsory weapons training is endemic. You effectively say this in your second paragraph, even though you make the point about being lone.

the problem comes when the guy carrying a dozen handguns is the only guy like that in a crowded place when he snaps and decides to go all murder-happy.

It's also important to note that even in well versed and trained military scenarios, when a lot of people start shooting, innocent people start dying (e.g. Pat Tillman, the many civilian deaths in Irag/Afghanistan/etc...). I would argue that there is no credible evidence or example scenarios for the "give everyone a gun and some training" to make us all safer postulate. Imagine the carnage if everyone was shooting back on the south side of Chicago these days. Plus, the Aurora, CO shooting should prove that making it legal to carry weapons isn't a solution (to an extent). In CO, it's legal to carry concealed firearms, but no one in the theater was, or they didn't want to use them. And to be honest, the last place I want to be is where it's entirely possible that there are multiple shooters in a dark room with lots of noise and confusion. I think it can be argued it's at least possible that a lone shooter resulted in fewer deaths than otherwise may have happened.

The biggest problem here is that most of this is assumption and based on personal feelings. In the end, nothing really changes one way or another. So like all the deaths due to drunk driving (we certainly aren't going to give up alcohol, and most don't really care that much), we should just accept that people are going to die like this every now and then, let it happen, and move on.

Notice the intolerance?

[jmorris42]

Notice how often some ideas will get instantly censored and others won't?

Post plans to make a gun and get yourself instantly frozen out. Classified military secrets go straight to the NYT and the leaker is called a hero.

Question politically correct orthodoxy in the pages of the Chronicle of Higher Edication and be fired almost instantly.

Say outrageous, at LEAST borderline if not outright, racist things for years and if you are Joe Biden your career doesn't end; no that is just Crazy Joe. Need it even be pointed out that any R saying things that dumb/retarded (say Akin for example) are denounced by the same people who cover for Joe and his boss?

When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.?

As for this idea, it is a veritable certainty it will be denounced by exactly the same people who support all other information being free. Pirate Party Yea! But not this. Double standard.

Me, I want more of this. I want plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon. Just to watch the heads explode at the realization that the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot to take your medicine.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[SuricouRaven]

Curiously, if you go to conservative forums, you find people complaining that liberals will tear apart republicans for saying awkward things but democrats are never held accountable for what they say. It seems both sides are blind to the flaws of their own people.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[houstonbofh]

It is kinda funny watching people scramble to change sides for this issue. :)

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[mjr167]

I want to be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy my printer, my ammo, and my plans all in one stop :)

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[jmorris42]

Nah, just annoyed. Even this /. summary tried to bury the lede. We already had a 3D printed gun thread, that ain't news. The censorship is the news, not a footnote.

Media bias usually isn't typically as blunt an instrument as it has become lately in the presidential elections and big policy disputes, it is more subtle. Some stories just aren't news, while some are beaten to death days beyond when most people are shouting "ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP" and flipping the channel. And like this one, the bias is in how a story is presented, what aspect is or is not presented with OUTRAGE, what key phrases are used in the story, etc.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[donaggie03]

When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.?

Who is this "we" and "you guys" you are talking about? The "you guys" that are very vocal about thier stance on a particular issue is rarely the same "you guys" that are just as vocal the next month, when another hot topic issue comes up. You gave two specific examples in your post, but neither one has much to do with the viewpoint of a random person on slashdot.

The mainstream media ignores Joe Biden's retardation but jumps on Akin? Um, yeah . . that's the mainstream media and anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention knows to take the new yellow journalism with a grain of salt. Go vent your frustration at CNN or FoxNews forums if you want. You're preaching to the choir here.

A political party sees an issue as more than just black and white and so might have differing views when specific issues are addressed? Say it ain't so! Even if you completely missed the last century of government and you don't know that political parties have been throwing around hypocrasies and double standards for quite a while now, you should be able to realize a simple truth. Printing your own gun and copying someone's music CD is not quite the same thing.

If printing your own gun becomes legal, or stays legal, what have you, and then the Pirate Party says it is against people using a particular gun design because it has a copyright, then that would be a double standard. If the Pirate Party says it should be illegal to print your own gun, then no, that is not a double standard. That is two standards for two different things. Either way, if you have issues with political parties, take it up with them. Refer to my earlier statement about preaching to the choir.

Just to be clear, I'm not against you speaking your mind. But from the quoted bit from your post, you don't seem to be distinguishing your audience (us) from the people you have issues with (msm and political parties).

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods think otherwise.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

By 'instantly censored' and 'frozen out' you mean "Indiegogo.com decided to drop them, they switched to using paypal, nobody else has done more than chatter"...

It might come, er, something of a surprise to people like http://www.cncguns.com/ (operational since 2004, if their site stats are accurate) that some ideas are "instantly censored"...

I realize that being a persecuted speaker of truth amidst the world's hypocritical sheep is ennobling and all; but please try to keep it empirically grounded.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.

Guess what? The morons in the right-wing already do. And it's just as false as Akin's apology that stated he just mispoke.

No, he wasn't just misspeaking, but saying something that was outright fabricated nonsense to justify his indifference to a serious issue that confronts many women. But rather than realize that he's utterly in the wrong, he just claims he shouldn't have used the word legitimate.

I've had quite enough conservative trolls spewing their vitriol against liberals, progressives and Democrats, that they then follow-up with a complaint that its the liberals censoring and rating them because they're called on their personal attacks and petty insults.

And other conservatives? Resounding silence. That's why nobody believes you when you cry about being the victims of intolerant and bigoted liberals. It's blatany hypocrisy on your part.

We aren't fooled by your disingenuous attempts to make yourselves the martyrs. It's just like when Romney complains about a less than conpletely accurate Obama statement (that's he's just exaggerating anyway) but when confronted with his own outright lies, he doubles down on them.

Or fucking Sarah Palin complaining that liberals are the mean ones, with no recognition of her own words. Like how she uses shackles and chains as metaphors.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall Joe the Biden ever saying anything quite as retarded as "if she got pregnant then it probably wasn't really a legitimate rape". You're doing that thing where you try and draw a false equivalency between two different sides when there really isn't one.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[mickwd]

"Me, I want more of this. I want plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon. Just to watch the heads explode at the realization that the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back."

Yeah, won't it just be fucking fantastic when billions of people around the world can 3D-print gas centrifuges and the equipment necessary to extract uranium from seawater. Won't that be fun to watch.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the trigger-happy ones...

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Hatta]

As for this idea, it is a veritable certainty it will be denounced by exactly the same people who support all other information being free. Pirate Party Yea! But not this. Double standard.

As a supporter of information freedom and (from the average American perspective) a radical leftist, I would like to say that I support this project in the strongest terms possible. These people are exercising their freedom of speech and should be able to do so without interference from the government. I want you to have those plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon, just to watch your head explode at the realization that I'm OK with that.

Go ahead, 3d print whatever you want. It's all just shapes until you shoot someone.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[oracleofbargth]

Yeah, won't it just be fucking fantastic when billions of people around the world can 3D-print gas centrifuges and the equipment necessary to extract uranium from seawater. Won't that be fun to watch.

It seems that the people we need to be watching are the shrimp processing plants. Now we know what they're up to with all that extra chitin laying around.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

[disclaimer - automatic weapons in the US require a $200 tax stamp prior to taking ownership / control of the weapon]

Generally speaking, the only thing that is needed to modify an AR-15 or AR-10 type weapon to full auto is a slight modification of the sear.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[stephanruby]

Notice how often some ideas will get instantly censored and others won't?

Post plans to make a gun and get yourself instantly frozen out. Classified military secrets go straight to the NYT and the leaker is called a hero.

Actually, the same thing happened to Wikileaks initially. Their Amazon hosting got shut down and their Pay Pal account got frozen. And just like Wikileaks rised again, this 3D printing project will rise again also. It's not like this kind of information-sharing can really be stopped.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[ArsonSmith]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or serious, I do like how when Obama says it it's a "less than completely accurate" where as when Romney says it it's "his own outright lie"

I laugh either way, and don't support either one.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[freeze128]

Just like the 3d printed guns, I would be more afraid of POSSESSING a plastic nuke, than I would be of being TARGETED by a plastic nuke....

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm being serious. Romney(or other Republicans) can outright lie about something, he doubles down on it. Obama says something that's not completely exact and precise, that if you try really hard, you can deliberately misinterpret into meaning something else, then it's treated as if he made something up on the spot by the Republican crowd.

Romney's mendacity is quite extensive, and I won't buy into the false equivalency game. It's not that both sides lie. The Republicans lie all day and into the night, Akin's lies about pregnancy from Rape are just one example. There are others, like the recent claim of taking money from Medicare, or about how Obama's dividing America.

Only in the fevered minds of Republicans does anything Obama's done compare to that.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[mpoulton]

Me, I want more of this. I want plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon. Just to watch the heads explode at the realization that the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back.

Do you realize that the only real obstacle to having an automatic weapon already is legal, not practical? The difference between a semi-auto and full-auto rifle is trivial from an engineering perspective. The Lightning Link is a tiny piece of stamped steel that reliably converts the AR-15 to full auto. It probably costs about $0.50 to manufacture in large quantities. You could literally make one in an afternoon from stuff you found around the house using only a Dremel. The only problem is that it's a federal offense to do so. Only Lightning Links registered with the ATF prior to May of 1986 are legally transferable for civilians. So there are only a few hundred in existence that are legal to own - and that's why a registered lightning link now costs approximately $8000 if you can find somebody selling one.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[AmiMoJo]

I am absolutely for freedom of speech, but I also recognize that sometimes something is just so dangerous we have to disallow it. Drink driving is the obvious example. It isn't just inebriation until someone dies, it happens too often and we decided to try and stop it.

Of course in this case it is probably impossible to stop. All we will be able to do is make it a crime, much like child pornography on the internet or illegal drugs.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Because the plural of anecdote is data!

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[mdielmann]

It's already illegal to shoot someone, it's illegal in most places (even many places in the US) to own a gun without a permit. So we already made laws to deal with the 'dangerous' part of this. Now we have two options to deal with 3D printing of guns. First, we can make distributing these files illegal. Sure, it's a plausible idea. After all, it worked great for movies. Second, we can make distributing 3d printers a regulated process. This is more practical, but not when we have 3d printers what can make most of the components, and the rest are pretty standard. This genie is very nearly out of the bottle, and I don't expect we can hold it in much longer.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[keith_nt4]

I've had quite enough conservative trolls spewing their vitriol against liberals, progressives and Democrats, that they then follow-up with a complaint that its the liberals censoring and rating them because they're called on their personal attacks and petty insults.

And other conservatives? Resounding silence.

I don't know which conservatives you've been referring to. If Rush Limbaugh is an example he was calling for Akin to drop out for like a week. Romney called for that as well. No idea where this "silence" is coming from. Maybe you just mute all conservatives?

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, I was not referring to the situation with Akin, though I disagree with your assessment, and I'd like to note that Huckabee just today wrote an e-mail supporting him and dismissing his words as just a minor mistake, and not something based on an utter fraud.

And I do feel that the calls for Akin to drop out are calculating determinations that he put his foot in his mouth, not actual disagreement with him on the principles of it.

IOW, they just want him out because they want to win the election, not because they think it's wrong.

Still, I was referring to personal interactions I've experienced on various forums and boards, not to any national party as a whole. Sorry for not making that clear.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[rastoboy29]

I really think you need to learn to question your assumptions.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story that a site with terms of service prohibiting " ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories" took down a campaign about making guns? That isn't a buried lead, it isn't news at all.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me, I want more of this. I want plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon. Just to watch the heads explode at the realization that the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back."

Yeah, won't it just be fucking fantastic when billions of people around the world can 3D-print gas centrifuges and the equipment necessary to extract uranium from seawater. Won't that be fun to watch.

Indeed it be fun to watch, for those who survive, if any, it will be clear that EVERYBODY can make a nuclear Bomb, so there will be a "social" interest in having EVERY person as educated and instructed as posible and the governments will be very interested in having their governees with a high standard of living.The political world WILL have to change , make some minority happy with the masses suffering will not be pollitically viable anymore, and of course it will be a feasible enterprise because we will be a lot less of people after a couple of nuclears 9/11.

The genie is out of the bottle allready, the technology allready exists, and regulation will not stop those determined to do it, as firearms regulations usually doesn't stop the criminal, who get a firearm anyway, by means of stealing it, self building it, bribing a cop and etcaetera.

Posting as ac fully intended, I don't want to be singled out as a wacko just because future is (probably) a big mess.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[rocket rancher]

As for this idea, it is a veritable certainty it will be denounced by exactly the same people who support all other information being free. Pirate Party Yea! But not this. Double standard.

As a supporter of information freedom and (from the average American perspective) a radical leftist, I would like to say that I support this project in the strongest terms possible. These people are exercising their freedom of speech and should be able to do so without interference from the government. I want you to have those plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon, just to watch your head explode at the realization that I'm OK with that.

Go ahead, 3d print whatever you want. It's all just shapes until you shoot someone.

Hmmm. I think your heart is in the right place, but freedom of speech does not give one the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and it's not much of a stretch to see how 3D printing of weapons poses the same public hazard that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater does.

More to the point, this might force a radical change in strategy from the anti-gun wing on the left. The problem with guns, as they see it, is in the readily available supply, not in the demand. Millions of Americans own guns, certainly; but they are in the minority, compared to, say, the people who own automobiles or TV sets. Anti-gun lobbyists know that legislative attempts to control gun ownership will always fail at the second amendment hurdle. The anti-gun wing on the left has been lobbying for decades for legislation to attack America's gun problem from the supply side, by making it more and more expensive to get the licenses necessary to manufacture the weapons, and making it outright illegal to import parts that are much more cheaper to use. 3D printing is going to pretty much undermine that supply-side strategy, which means the left is going to have to double down and try to rescind the second amendment. I really don't see another option for the left, and I fear that it may trigger a genuine civil war in this country.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, won't it just be fucking fantastic when billions of people around the world can 3D-print gas centrifuges and the equipment necessary to extract uranium from seawater. Won't that be fun to watch.

That'd be some awesome 3D printer. I'm being cynical, what you suggest is practically impossible for about a dozen reasons. Forgetting that these centrufuges are huge machines and made to ultra high precision and made out of high temperature forged steels, you need hundreds of them to make any amount of uranium and a vast factory complex to run them including its own power station to power them.
In short why can't you 3D print a nuclear bomb or the factory to make it? for much the same reasons that you can't 3D print a working Space Shuttle or a living person. What you're talking about isn't a 3D printer its a StarTrek replicator and there's a universe of difference between the two. ...

Donations

[girlintraining]

People need to stop using PayPal and other sites that allow them to freeze your funds because they are feeling contrary. Start using wire funds transfers to offshore accounts, or mailing in checks, etc. I know it may not be as convenient but these companies are happy to eat your money and give you nothing in return. And while that money is frozen, you're not getting interest on those funds either -- they are. It's in their best interests to search for reasons to freeze your funding, and people will keep throwing money at them because it's convenient to do so.

Stop supporting these companies, and for that matter, stop doing business with companies in the United States -- that includes Visa and Mastercard. Most organizations worldwide are moving off the dollar and away from US-based businesses for financial support and advice because they've become a militant government that commits acts of economic terrorism.

Re:Donations

[Tom]

Give me an alternative that works a) world-wide, b) takes credit cards and c) no setup-fees and I will move off PayPal.

Until then, my less-tinfoil-hat alternative is to never keep any substantial amounts of money in there. Whenever my account has accumulated a few hundred bucks, I transfer it to my bank account.

So far, works like charm. If they ever do freeze my account for whatever crazy reason of the day, I've lost an amount that sucks, but doesn't endanger me.

Re:Donations

[houstonbofh]

People need to stop using PayPal ...

As if people need yet another reason to stop using PayPall. Although, I guess they do!

Re:Donations

[cvtan]

Bank transfers need to be free. Right now they are so expensive in the US that you can't use them except for large $$$ purchases. Try to buy something from eBay Germany. Many sellers do not use Paypal or take credit cards or checks because they have free bank transfers. So you have to send them cash in the mail. Last time I did that, the cash never made it (big surprise).

Re:Donations

[girlintraining]

Give me an alternative that works a) world-wide, b) takes credit cards and c) no setup-fees and I will move off PayPal.

They have setup-fees, you just don't see them. You have money sitting in your PayPal account right now, right? It's not earning interest, it's just a static dollar amount. And you have to maintain a positive balance to have a PayPal account. What I mean is, when you open a PayPal account, you link it to another account, and then PayPal transfers money from that account in chunks whenever you make a transaction. So let's say you have $26 in your account, and you buy something that costs $28. PayPal transfers in $25 increments, so after you buy your $28 do-dad, you have $23 in your PayPal account.

Everybody who has a PayPal account has similar, and this is how they make their money, and not a small amount either. At any point in time, PayPal only has to pay out a fraction of what it's holding in all those accounts in aggregate, just like a bank. And because it's not a bank and not subject to the rules of a bank, it can loan out the money that isn't needed to cover transactions right now for short amounts of time, earning interest and dividends on that. Banks do this too, but they're required by law to cover the entire amount of your checking/savings account, up to the FDIC maximum ($100k). What's more, if you ever make a purchase that exceeds the amount in your account, PayPal only has to cover the difference -- money will still be leftover in the account when the transaction completes. But wait, there's more. PayPal doesn't immediately release funds; It immediately gets funds from you, but the vendor isn't paid right away. That only comes hours or even days later. So PayPal has that amount of time that it can loan out the money and earn dividends on it before it has to pay it out.

As a result of all these delays and small balance accounts you have to maintain to have a PayPal, it can not only get away with not having setup-fees, but makes sure you're providing them with a considerable investment base and profits from that.

All the convenience instruments you use, credit cards, paypal, banks, etc., rely on these delays in moving your money from their account to the vendor account, to make profit. Unlike those financial instruments, however, PayPal doesn't have to follow the same federal regulations. Which means, if tomorrow it imploded, you'd lose everything in your PayPal and there's nothing you could do about it. If you read their EULA and stuff, you'll realize exactly how little rights you have to that money -- which is to say, basically none. They can simply say "We suspect you're a criminal", and then it's your job to prove your innocence to an arbitrator hired and paid for by them. There are no procedural rules, it's just a meeting with a guy in an office. And whatever he decides is legally binding.

Your convenience account has no protections whatsoever. None. If you're comfortable with that, then go ahead and use PayPal. Make them rich at your expense and that of the vendor you do business with. Of all the middlemen you could choose, they're the worst... but, in the end, it is your choice. Now if you want an alternative... there are plenty available internationally. Do your homework. Personally, I'd start with Germany or Switzerland, but pretty much anywhere you go outside North America you're going to find robust, cheap solutions, with plenty of legal guarantees.

Re:Donations

[ArsonSmith]

WTF are you talking about? My paypal account maintains a 0 balance 99% of the time and only has money it it for ~ 3 days after receiving a payment. What is this $25 BS you're talking about? I buy something it takes the exact amount from my checking account and forwards it to the receiver.

Re:Donations

[Tom]

Nonsense. PayPal does not draw any money from any other account of mine, and the only direction money is transferred in is from PayPal to my bank account.

Yes, PayPal makes money off my transactions - it still happens to be the best alternative for me, as everyone else wants to make even more money.

Re:Donations

[kamapuaa]

What the fuck? Did Paypal do this 10 years ago maybe? When you don't know what you're talking about, why are you writing a small essay?

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

... Most organizations worldwide are moving off the dollar and away from US-based businesses for financial support and advice because they've become a militant government that commits acts of economic terrorism. ...

Give me an alternative that works a) world-wide, b) takes credit cards and c) no setup-fees and I will move off PayPal.

Until then, my less-tinfoil-hat alternative is to never keep any substantial amounts of money in there. Whenever my account has accumulated a few hundred bucks, I transfer it to my bank account.

So far, works like charm. If they ever do freeze my account for whatever crazy reason of the day, I've lost an amount that sucks, but doesn't endanger me.

Because subsidizing economic terrorism with your complicity, and giving money to corporations that try to lead their customers around by the nose, is totally alright so long as you're only feeding into it all a little bit .

Thank goodness you won't be inconvenienced though. That's the important thing here.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

Just FYI the bank account you say you're transferring your paypal funds into: You do know they can transfer them right back out right?

If your bank account is associated w/ your paypal, they have full control over it whether you know it or not.

What you should be doing, is transferring your paypal funds into a buffer account at your bank, then transferring it yet again to a 2nd account at your bank not associated with the other one. I've seen so many people get screwed by backcharges from Paypal when the money was already in their bank.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

dwolla.com doesn't meet all 3, but is another viable alternative.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm they can access your bank account.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Stop doing business with the United States.

Because that makes any sense whatsoever / is even practially possible in the modern world.

But otherwise, rock on.

Re:Donations

[Tom]

If your bank account is associated w/ your paypal, they have full control over it whether you know it or not.

That might be true for the US. Over here in Germany, I would take them to court the second they take a single cent out of my bank account.

Re:Donations

[Tom]

I feel for everyone who has ever been screwed by PayPal, but I've done almost 10 years of business with them now and haven't had any serious trouble. On the plus side they provide me with a service that nobody else offers in a comparable form. And that's why I use them.

So if you want people to stop using PayPal, get VC money and start a PayPal competitor.

Material Strength

[donaggie03]

For someone with limited knowledge about 3D printing technology, the obvious question is: Does the 3D printed material have enough strength to withstand a small explosion in a compact space? What about the heat created from the explosion? Can it do so repeatedly?

Re:Material Strength

[romanval]

I don't even know if cheap 3D printers have the resolution to do smooth curved surfaces (as in .00001-inch). It would be more accurate to 3D print the stock and bore out the barrel with standard drill press.

In the end I don't think 3D printers are an advantage for making guns, since an experienced person can build a regular metal gun with a few billet pieces and ordinary CAD/CAM+machining tools.

Re:Material Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, and no. Not with current plastics. And rifling a barrel is NOT an easy thing to do without highly specialized and expensive machinery.

So, all this angst about 'OMG, plastic guns!' is totally wasted. Amusing, though.

Re:Material Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

The 10k stratysys machine produces lower quality prints then a well tuned Ultimaker (costing only 1.2k euro)

However, accuracy is around the 0.05mm, less if you also think about thermal shrinkage. The material is pretty hard, but nowhere near steel hard. Guess you could fabricate something that fires low caliber rounds without exploding in your face. But I wouldn't want to try it.

(I own an Ultimaker, and I have quite a bit of 3D printing experience)

Re:Material Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

A .22LR case is designed around 30,000 psi. Some of the larger / hotter +P loads push pressures of up to 50,000 psi. Most barrels are made out of 4140 or 4150 steel to handle those pressures. Is it possible to handle those presures with ceramic or perhaps carbon fiber? I dont know. Not sure I want to be the one to try either. For now, I will be assuming that barrels will continue to be made out of solid steel.

Re:Material Strength

[lister king of smeg]

they seemed to be able to do for hundreds of years now, the first rifled gun being made in 1520, and has been done for most guns since the mid 1800's why cant we do it now?

Re:Material Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

You can...if you're a skilled machinist/tool & die maker.

Your average garage tinkerer...nope. He might succeed in making a smoothbore that sorta works, if you count 'not blowing up' as working. Make a rifled barrel? No way.

There are 3 basic methods of rifling a barrel. One is using a single point cutter and/or a multiple point broach, and is the most likely method a backyard machinist would try, and most likely fail repeatedly. Second method is called button rifling, in which a carbide button with reversed rifling impression is either pushed or pulled through the barrel blank. Specialized machinery is needed and is expensive. Third method is hammer-forging, which is far beyond the capabilities of most machine shops. VERY expensive equipment is needed, far out of reach of any but governments and major corporations.

Re:Material Strength

[goodmanj]

I posted elsewhere that the problem with 3d printing enthusiasts is that they think their machines are a new paradigm, which allows them to ignore a civilization's worth of engineering experience.

The guys in 1520 weren't banging rocks and sticks together. They were working from centuries of metalworking experience, and were doing incredible things with metal. Some geek with a glorified hot-glue-gun and some CAD software is not going to be able to match what they were doing. Not without *learning* their techniques rather than rejecting them as old-fashioned.

Re:Material Strength

[Chrontius]

Uh, they can just add the rifling to the blueprint. And shitty rifling is still legally rifling.

Protip: So is straight rifling. It's how .410 revolver "shotguns" skirt the spirit of the law while remaining in full compliance.

Re:Material Strength

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone with limited knowledge about 3D printing technology, the obvious question is: Does the 3D printed material have enough strength to withstand a small explosion in a compact space? What about the heat created from the explosion? Can it do so repeatedly?

One word answer..

No.

Slightly longer answer.. No. And not likely to have for quite a while. If ever.

Especially if we limit ourselves to reality, and ignore Star Trek tech.

There are a few different printing methods.
1) Filament melting and drawing layer by layer. Essentially a computer controlled glue gun. can make some useful things, but not really accurate. The plastics used are ABS(lego brick) and PLA. With water soluble PVA( wood glue) being used lately as a support medium to print overhangs. This is how RepRap style printers work.
ABS, which is the stronger and less brittle I think, melts round 200 degrees C. Bullets get a wee bit hotter than this.

2) Powder bath type printers. A box of powder is built up layer by layer, and wetted by an inkjet type head that sprays a resin or solvent. More accurate, but again., No real heat bearing properties.

3) Resin cured by UV light. usually a laser.
Again. Not good with heat.

4) Laser sintering. Way way beyond the reach of non industrial users. Can kind of print metal though. But not forge the metal in a way that it gains the extra strength metal workers have devoted thousands of years to perfecting.

People who comment on 3D printing stories are it seems, generally incapable of reigning in their imaginations, and insist Moore's law somehow is the grand unified theory of everything. And in a few years, we will be downloading cars and TV sets and phones.

People with some technical understanding look at these stories and laugh. Because we know what is actually going on, and know that anybody who expects to be able to download a file from the net and have a complex 3D object half an hour later with no technical skills, is dreaming.

If you are interested. Go on Youtube,and watch some videos on it. Ignore Bre Pettis, who will in pretty much every interview, claim we will soon be able to print everything, and will happily exaggerate his company's product's capabilities beyond reason.

For small non precision plastic parts, these are great tools for the keen hobbyist who has done their homework,and know what they are getting.
For the ever present and always imaginary Joe Average, who has problems operating a tooth paste tube. Useless.
For mass production. useless.
For making a gun.. Laughable.

A slingshot.. Perhaps.

GEE, THANKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to ruin a good project by turning it in to a weapon.

Why do we allow Texas to still exist, again?

Re:GEE, THANKS

[houstonbofh]

Way to ruin a good project by turning it in to a weapon.

Why do we allow Texas to still exist, again?

Sorry, but in Texas we do not need printers to own guns.

What a terrible idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like the worst idea for a cool 3D printing design contest ever.

IF this succeeds, and someone actually creates something useful like this, this will create instant wrath of the governments over 3D printers and their supplies.

Just think of the consequences: plastic guns avoid metal detectors altogether, people that other cannot obtain a license and should not have a gun suddenly will have a free access to one, and finally, this will bypass gun laws in all countries.

This will have so many negative legal side-effects that we'll be sorting out this mess for next 50 years.

Re:What a terrible idea...

[Broken scope]

Well the good news is that we can't reliably make all plastic cartridges, let alone all plastic weapons,. On top of that, people with access to a CNC mill have been quite capable of machining a rifle parts out of billet for years(Specifically the controlled part of the weapon). Yet the world hasn't fallen apart.

Re:What a terrible idea...

[houstonbofh]

IF this succeeds, and someone actually creates something useful like this, this will create instant wrath of the governments over 3D printers and their supplies.

Supplies? You mean old coke bottles? This is one genie that is WAY out of the bottle.

because...

[Tom]

...if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's guns.

I didn't realize anyone would consider the Lord of War quote regarding the other 11 a call-to-action.

Re:because...

[houstonbofh]

...if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's guns.

The world may not, but some of the voiceless people in it do. The one thing a dictator fears the most is a populace that can shoot back.

Re:because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam Hussein didn't seem to have a problem with that. Gun ownership in Hussein's Iraq was pretty high.

Contemporary source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/world/threats-responses-iraq-sandbags-already-streets-baghdad-city-waiting.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

One gauge of that fear is the trade at gun shops. Most Iraqi households own at least one gun, so there has been no particular run on armaments. But some gun shop owners report as much as a 50 percent jump in ammunition sales.

''I came in to buy a hunting gun, but I'm also thinking about how to protect my house and the neighborhood streets,'' said Yasser Abu Bilal, looking at a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun at the Trigger gun shop in the upscale Mansour neighborhood.

Re:because...

[tmosley]

Works well for the Swiss. Lowest crime rates in the world, EVERYONE is armed, and all the young men are armed with automatic weapons.

Re:because...

[Tom]

Nonsense. Lots of dictators rule over people where everyone and his dog has an AK47. Education is more dangerous than weapons, which is why it's the first thing that wannabe dictators cut back, see most western countries recently.

An expensive zip gun

[sl4shd0rk]

Why spend the money/time printing one? Some people just make them for $7 out tubing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

Too Cool

[Sparticus789]

You can have my gun.... When you pry my 3-D printer from the table over there. Seriously, it's just in the other room, you can have it. I don't want any trouble.

Ha ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about the wacky United States of America!

Ah, shoot.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I was gonna do this.

Help yourself, it's reality today

[SuperKendall]

How exactly are they planning to 3D print a barrel that can withstand real ammunition? How are they planning to rifle it?

A .22 is a small enough bullet and 3D printers have advanced enough as far as materials that can be used, that it might well be practical to have a barrel that held up. Especially if you were willing to replace the barrel every hundred shots or so. Why not, when you can just print more...

Also, God help us if this ever became a reality.

Why? The reality TODAY is that anyone can get a gun that wants one, and for a lot cheaper than 3-D printers will probably ever be.

It does illustrate just how farcical the notion of gun control really is, when so obviously control over guns is soon to be even more impossible than ever before...

If you are worried, the solution is to get a gun yourself and get training on how to use it.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm paranoid and all but, really? Which organization is running this little game? Is it the TSA or is it some pathetic wannabe terrorist group?

'Hey, let's crowd source undetectable improvised gun designs!'

Seriously?

If it really is an innocuous game being run by private citizens, it's a really stupid one, in the sense that they just drew a whole lot of scrutiny that they won't want.

all in the privacy of their own garage...

[cjjjer]

So the have a wiki that wants to publish the plans on making a 3D gun on the internet and they are using PayPal...

I am sure nothing bad will happen to them...

When 3D printers are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

... only outlaws will own 3D printers.

Re:When 3D printers are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of by definition of "outlawed", isn't it?

Re:This is idiotic behavior.

[Otter Popinski]

Why would they go to Parchman? That's two states away.

Not PayPal that froze them out

[SuperKendall]

They are taking donations via PayPal. It's IndieAGoGo (I think that's the name), a kickstarter-like clone that locked them out.

Re:Not PayPal that froze them out

[guises]

They also didn't freeze any funds, the IndieAGoGo project was canceled - no funds were ever transferred. I hate Paypal too, but this rant was misapplied.

Also, the reason why you use Paypal is because you don't get any donations if you require paper checks or wire transfers. Part of being a successful charity is understanding that you need to make it easy for people to contribute.

Why a 3-d printer

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're really concerned about people not being able to make weapons, wouldn't the better solution to be design guns that could be made with something like a drill press and minimal metal stock? Far more commonly available than a 3-D printer, cheaper, and it's far more plausible that it would actually be serviceable for more than one or two shots.

Re:Why a 3-d printer

[shutdown -p now]

Like this?

No clear winner?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the clear winner would be the user who didn't pay out his ass just to use an OS that performs equally to or less than one that is free.

Fundraising...

[LVSlushdat]

Fundraising via Paypal ending with Paypal freezing all proceeds in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

What's the big deal?

[hey!]

It's not hard to make a firearm. It's hard to make an accurate, reliable firearm with useful ergonomic features like multi-shot magazines.

Kids have been making "zip guns" in shop for years. The simplest single shot designs use a nail driven by a rubber band to strike a cartridge held in a metal tube. For a .22 barrel you can use a length of copper tubing set in epoxy in a steel pipe. Or you can drill a hole in a solid piece of steel. For a shotgun shell, an iron or steel pipe will do.

If you want to ensure people are always armed, figure out a way to make *cartridges*. Or perhaps design a gun that works reliably with improvised cartridges. Maybe adapt a home cigarette rolling machine to make paper cartridges disguised as smokes.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flagged - Category A/E (Enabling Terrorism; Methods and Techniques). Refer to ATF for collection and prosecution.

Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

People donated ? Who in the universe want to lose money in such reckless and inappropriate venture...

Oh yeah, the article says it all : Texas, Arkansas and North Carolina.

If that project goes on, in some years, we'll hear about another shooting in a Cinema done with a 3D-printed gun that looked like the props in the film and taught to be a toy. And no, this law student, became lawyer, won't be accountable for...

Since I'm not american, maybe I don't understand freedom and put responsibility in front of it but, tell me, can't they really imagine those "unforeseen consequences" , free man ?

Re:Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

>Implying the crazy person wouldn't have just gotten a gun elsewhere.
>Implying 3D printed guns would EVER be superior to actual metal guns.
>Implying you are a total idiot.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who can't make a .22 LR pistol from any random assortment of scrap w/ minimal hand tools shouldn't have one. The notion of making a practical firearm entirely from plastics is silly because it demonstrates a very poor understanding of materials.

As for the legality. In the US it's perfectly legal to make anything which is not otherwise restricted (i.e. full auto, silencers, destructive devices and other NFA weapons). You're just not allowed to sell them unless you get a manufacturing license.

Designing a durable single shot shotgun w/ good ergonomics that can be built from readily available materials IS a worthy endeavor. Designing a $30 gun that requires a $1000+ 3D printer is pointless. There are much cheaper fabrication methods.

This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

Nerds need to take more shop classes. Everybody on Slashdot thinks that 3-d printing represents the dawn of a new paradigm, where we can actually *make physical objects ourselves* rather than buying them at a store. Guess what? Making your own things is not some brilliant new hack, people have been doing it for centuries.

Give me a block of steel, a drill press and a .22 caliber drill, and in 20 minutes I'll make you a gun that's a hell of a lot more accurate and reuseable than anything you can print out with your RepRap. Give me a few more hours and a milling machine, and I'll make you one you wouldn't be ashamed to rob a bank with.

Hacking the physical world isn't something computer nerds just invented. It just seems new to you because you chose to take web design as a high school elective rather than metal shop.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll make you one you wouldn't be ashamed to rob a bank with."

I bought a .50 cal muzzleloader once, and the gun store owner checked my ID, had me license the firearm with the State, took my money, and handed me the gun.

I asked him, "Isn't there a background check or anything?"

He replied, "It's not like you're buying a real gun. The days of robbing banks with these are long over."

So, I would say to you: it's gotta be more than a single shot. Can you really make a repeater?

Oh, and you can legally order flintlock or caplock pistols, rifles, blunderbusses, carbines, dragoons, etc. in the mail without any sort of background check. It's legal for all pre-1890 technology, i.e. non-cartridge firearms.

The cool thing about flintlocks is that you can mould your own bullets, make your own powder, etc. I've been noticing that old technology was built to be able to be used independently, whereas modern products are often designed to make you depend on the manufacturer for refills, maintenance, etc. This is probably a general trend as society has changed for the sake of convenience, better function, higher technology, etc. But it is a reality.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone with a 3D printer. I agree with your post.

You are SO right. It's like people have this tool, and suddenly they want to use it for everything. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

I also have access to a lasercutter and a cnc mill. And of those 3 tools, I think the lasercutter is the most useful. If you want to make things.

A lasercutter is the fastest way to produce something larger with decent quality. A 3D printer can create some unique objects that no other machine can make, but in general you don't need that. Take a look on thingiverse, quite a few 3D printed designs are flat and could have been lasercut just as easy.

I do like my 3D printer, exactly for that reason, it can create things that no other machine can.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, my high school had neither.

Re:This is stupid.

[chronosan]

The exciting part isn't just making something in meatspace, if it was we'd just bake cookies. It's the ability to effortlessly duplicate a design, which can be shared, improved upon, and manufactured with repeatable precision. Now, as far as building parts with the strength of metal, there are 3D printers that use metal, but they are expensive multi-stage processes. I can only imagine that they will get better/less expensive with time.

Re:This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

So, I would say to you: it's gotta be more than a single shot. Can you really make a repeater?

Beyond my skills. Well, I could make a pepper-box gun by drilling multiple holes in a block of metal with a separate firing pin for each, but no way I could make a semi-automatic. But I doubt you can make a workable multi-shot gun with a 3-d printer either, so it's a wash.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that printing scales. YOU might be able to make a gun that way, but how many could? 3D-printing, in the future will make it possible for anyone and everyone. That is an enormous difference.

Re:This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

Your comment actually demonstrates my point pretty nicely, now that I think about it. The geeky idea behind printable weapons is to use 3-d printing to hack firearms laws in the same way that digital media law has hacked copyright law. The problem is that the kinds of weapons you could print with modern 3-d printers are not restricted weapons under firearms law. It's as big a threat to gun policy as photocopying sheet music to "Octopus's Garden" is to copyright law.

Now, if 3d printing advances to the point where everybody has a machine in their garage that they can toss a few kilos of steel and brass in one end and get anything from fuel injectors to MP5s coming out the other, *then* we've got a serious threat to gun control laws. But since such a machine renders the ideas of "industry" and "labor" obsolete, the gun issue is small potatoes in comparison.

Re:This is stupid.

[scorp1us]

Never mind the metallurgy.
Any printed material is sintered with brass as a binder, meaning your action and barrel has to be built as if it's made out of brass. Oh and brass melts easily and wears quickly. People just don't understand temper, hardness, composition and the finer bits of metallurgy. They think all blocks of steel are the same.

Re:This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

Guess I hit a nerve with my taunt. Just so you know a little about me: I can hack Python *and* use a milling machine. I can write a SQL query *and* use a tap and die.

I understand the value of computer-aided manufacturing, and I enjoy working with my 3-d printer. But because I know how to work with both bits and metal, I recognize that 3-d printing is a small improvement on existing techniques, and not a total paradigm shift.

At least, not yet.

Re:This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

The "making for the masses" aspect of 3-d printing is -- at least right now -- pretty overrated. I (the guy your post is replying to) spent some time this summer learning to use a 3-d printer myself. It's a great tool, and a useful addition to my toolset. But after I'd learned how to use Blender and other 3-d design software, figured out the various options for creating toolpaths in Skeinforge, and gotten to know how extruder temperature, room temperature, tool flow speed and plastic type affect the final results, I'd spent at least as much time learning how to use it as a lathe or milling machine. I had a ton of fun doing so, but it wasn't remotely plug-and-play.

Now, this is an immature technology that's getting better by the month, and maybe someday 3-d printing is going to be so easy, so flexible, and so cheap that everyone will be printing out Uzis in their basement. But in my experience, working with real-world materials requires a certain degree of training and skill, no matter how smart your tool is.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and that is one of the big problems that we have today. Makers are a dying breed.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are asking for $20,000 to create a single shot .22 "gun", which can be made with $5 worth of junk from Home Depot. Being able to "effortlessly replicate" junk is stupid.

Seriously, a zip gun is about as difficult as baking cookies. Since I'm a guy who hates baking and loves metal shop, it's actually easier than baking cookies.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Home 3D printers are fairly new but home CNC (computerized numerical control) tools have been around for decades. They are just regular machine tools (lathe, mill, etc.) controlled by a computer. You put a piece of metal into the machine, load the program, and sit back while the machine makes the widget. On lower cost machines you get prompted to change a tool now and then (like swapping out a drill bit for one of another size). Fancy machines do this completely automatically. Costs start at a few hundred dollars depending. Type "hobby cnc" into your favorite search engine for more info.

Re:This is stupid.

[shutdown -p now]

I suppose you could make a revolver, where the operator would have to manually turn the cylinder.

Re:This is stupid.

[swillden]

Give me a block of steel, a drill press and a .22 caliber drill, and in 20 minutes I'll make you a gun that's a hell of a lot more accurate and reuseable than anything you can print out with your RepRap. Give me a few more hours and a milling machine, and I'll make you one you wouldn't be ashamed to rob a bank with.

You could... but could your next-door neighbor? And his?

My grandfather could paint letter-perfect signs. I don't have anywhere near his skill, but I can create equally-perfect (or perhaps a bit better) signs with a color laser printer. Obviously his skill provided a level of flexibility I don't have -- a laser printer doesn't do too well putting an image directly on the surface of a brick wall, for example -- but using the laser printer requires very little knowledge or skill.

There's no doubt that a machinist with a machine shop can manufacture a gun, obviously. The question is, can a random Joe without special skills, but with access to a 3D printer do the same thing? If so, that is a significant change.

(I recognize that 3D printing can't, as yet, produce all of the components of a gun because plastic, or even sintered metal, can't withstand the stresses required of the chamber or barrel, but that may well change over time, and in any case there is clearly value in reducing the number of component that require the skills of a machinist.)

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some shapes that cannot be created with current machine tools, but can be made with stereolithography. That will open up the universe of possible weapon designs, including improvements to the small semiautomatic handgun that I and a couple million (just in my state!) other permit holders tend to prefer.

Re:This is stupid.

[trout007]

First let me flash my credentials. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science. I have a LOT more mechanical engineering experience and have worked in design and machine shops for 20 years and have been using commercial 3D printers for about 10 years.

3D printing is a new paradigm just like CNC controls were a new paradigm 30-40 years ago. It allowed much greater flexibility, speed, and accuracy in manufacturing. Things that could only be done by expert mold and tool makers could be built by people with much less experience.

Our current machine (Object) has material that is as strong as welded aluminum. So we are already in the engineering ball park here.

There are a couple of milestones down the road that will key. Since we already had resin based machines the next milestone is the ability to lay individual reinforcing fibers. This will allow amazing flexibility in design by allowing for direct control over stress and deflection. Instead of isotropic materials like metal or quasi-isotropic laminates we can lay fibers right where we need them.

Second is moving from plastics to welded metal. Instead of extruding plastic or printing resin we will get to the point where we can control the deposition of metal very accurately. I have designed very thin metal parts by having an aluminum blank made. Then coated with a thin layer of nickel. Then dissolve the aluminum to leave the nickel part behind.

With 3D printing eventually we will get to the point where we mimic nature by having an object full of different materials where each is in the right place for it's job. So one machine would be able to print a barrel that has carbon or boron outside wrap for strength and stiffness. Then a layer of aluminum for heat dissapation. Then finally on the inside a coating of nickel or chrome for hardness.

I'm not saying we are close yet. But we are moving in that direction.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got a point there, but there's one aspect you haven't mentioned: previously, making physical objects took skill and experience. How long have you spent doing metalwork, to get to the point where you can make a decent gun in a few hours? Someone with a printer should be able to make a gun - an inferior one, for now - after a few minutes of learning how the printer works.

There's a projectile weapons analogy here, in the way that crossbows replaced longbows. A longbow is a superior weapon, with a greater range, rate of fire, etc. - but it takes a lifetime of training to use, whereas any peasant can pick up a crossbow and fire it.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not "effortless". You and everyone else that drank that cool aid needs to take a hard look at what actually exists. There's nothing effortless about using, programming or owning a reprap. The same goes for EVERY other 3D printing tech that's out there. They have their place but it's not a "replicator". Nor will it be.
If for nothing else than the simple fact that subtractive manufacturing will almost in every case be FASTER and therefor CHEAPER, 3D printing will never take over the world the way all you armchair manufacturers believe it will.

Re:This is stupid.

[couchslug]

"So, I would say to you: it's gotta be more than a single shot. Can you really make a repeater?"

You can make any metal firearm with a lathe and a mill, for those can produce most other tooling and machines.

Re:This is stupid.

[WillAdams]

Or, you could purchase a percussion revolver, then purchase a conversion cylinder for black-powder-equivalent cartridges, then install it, and you've ``manufactured'' a repeating pistol for cased / cartridge ammunition.

Remove the cylinder before selling to stay legal.

William

Re:This is stupid.

[WillAdams]

Yeah, once upon a time, I had a book, the premise of which was that one could make a lathe by investment casting, then use the lathe to make a better lathe, then a drill press, then use that to make the other tools needed in a shop.

Re:This is idiotic behavior.

[Anonymous Coward]

But what has really happened is that these idiots are squandering their rights

No it isn't, because "squandering" does not mean "exercising in a way I don't personally approve of". And yes, that IS exactly what you meant.

They're lucky I'm not in charge, they'd get a couple of semesters at Parchman Farm for the mere suggestion of printing guns.

In other words, you explicitly and actively oppose the very concept of free speech in any possible form. That does explain your position on those t-shirts.

Easy

[whitedsepdivine]

Sorry for this bad ascii art but I try. Periods are just spacing.

____ Spring...... ____________________________________
|......|_^_^_^_^_^|...........|_____________________________|
|......___FP___..|} ...|Bullet)_____Barrel not threaded______|
|___| v..v..v...v.. v|______|_____________________________|

^Handle .............. ^Threaded connection
FP = Firing Pin

So it is really basic when you only want to fire one bullet. You have a spring loaded handle, when you release it, it goes forward and hits the bullet. Your barrel just threads onto the spring loaded firing pin handle. This way you can load the bullet in.

Assuming that the barrel will not last, you can just make multiple barrels and just use one handle.

20k to draw a blueprint?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smells fishy. If I'm going to back a project like this, I'd expect the person in charge of the project already knows how to engineer a gun. But I just RTFA, and see that they want to buy a 10,000 3D printer, but expect the design to be producible on a $1,000 printer. Then they want to hold a contest for designs with large cash prizes. Sounds like the plan of an MBA.

Further, this is an order of magnitude less complicated than engineering a real gun. It only has to fire one round. Wouldn't a tube, a nail, and a spring accomplish the same thing?

Re:This is idiotic behavior.

[Feyshtey]

When the feds come for your t-shirts and your 3d printers, you will whine and say your rights are being violated.

And we will be dead on correct. Meanwhile fucking idiots like you are more than happy to assist in regulating away freedoms, wholly failing to recognize that even idiots have rights. This is still a country founded on "Innocent until proven guilty" and until a CITIZEN is proven guilty they retain the explicit protections of the Constitution. The number of idiots incapable of handling that responsibility to have preceeded them is irrelevant, as is the number of self-righteous nannies hell-bent being the only ones allowed to make choices.

Trouble.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids can build guns now? This is seriously gonna impact the high school shop-built bong industry.

The NRA will be against this

[circletimessquare]

the NRA does not represent the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The NRA represents gun manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers won't like upstart easy gun assembly, it hurts their business.

So watch the NRA come out against this.

Like many issues in America, a certain segment of the population is hoodwinked by corporate interests who hire demagogues and propaganda artists to talk a good talk, but underneath it all is corporate interests that in fact will happily stand against the common man when it comes to the bottom line.

I'm still waiting for this segment of the US population to wake up to how their easy to identify prejudices are being manipulated by financial interests that happily hurt them. Such as healthcare insurers who happily charge you more to live less than other industrialized countries, or fossil fuel multinationals who don't want to pay more to make their fuel burn cleaner. The common man suffers. But the common man is manipulated and pandered to to hurt themselves (destroyed environment, hurt health, curtailed rights), and aid the bottom line of some greed machine that does not even represent capitalism, but represents cronyism, nepotism, and monopolistic practices.

Wake up.

Re:The NRA will be against this

[Anonymous Coward]

You could be right, but I would think the real reason they would be against this is because it makes it easier for people who shouldn't have a gun to get one. The resulting crime and injury could ultimately fuel efforts to remove our second ammendment rights.

Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[TiggertheMad]

That's entirely the point: designing ways to compensate for the weakness of plastic.

This story is huge. We all know that home 3d printers are just a matter of time, but this is probably the 'magic app' that causes the tech to go mainstream. Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast. Moreover, Corry Doctrow has written articles about the 'coming war on war on general purpose computing', describing how corporate entities want to control how you use your computers. This story could mark the beginning of the government wanting to try to control how you use them too. While contemporary printers cannot make plastic guns that fire thousands of rounds, mass adoption will lead to increases in quality, tolerances, and material strength of printed materials, while lowering costs. If you can print a one shot .22 pistol now, we are within a decade of being able to print a 10,000 round life Mac-10. If the ATF isn't flipping its shit over this, they should be. Ignoring the whole question of if it is constitutionally legal or not to bear arms, their current organizational goal is to regulate firearms, and that bus is pulling out of the station as we speak.

Obviously, you cannot control who gets their hands on files to print guns. They have been trying to stop digital child porn since the early days of the net, and that is a clearly winnable war. Unlike something like child porn, guns are not reviled by a good 99% of the population so good luck in regulating gun blueprints. Everybody will have access to them, for better or worse. I am not too concerned about criminals getting (more) guns, but I am worried about your average slob with poor judgement being empowered like this, since there are far more of them with plenty of good intentions. Get ready to see school shooting fatalities go up, as the kids in the trench coats upgrade from 9mm handguns to uzis.

I for better or worse, we are turning a corner.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Diss Champ]

This could also be the magic app that leads to the govt to start trying to control access to replicators.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Get ready to see school shooting fatalities go up, as the kids in the trench coats upgrade from 9mm handguns to uzis.
How is changing from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to a 9mm semi-automatic Uzi going to increase fatalities? Do you believe the larger magazine will drastically improve the cyclic rate of fire for these would be assailants? Or is this based on the belief that the Uzi looks scary so it must be more lethal? And I would love to see the 10,000 round MAC-10 since the originals weren't that well put together to start with.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast.

Where do you live that these groups don't overlap much?

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[roman_mir]

10 thousand rounds is not hard right now, just have 10,000 barrels, each one preloaded with a single shot, fired electrically, no need to strike anything, just a couple of wires. Have this configured as a wearable vest, covered up lightly.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Orga]

It's a bummer I was really hoping the DIY railgun tech was going to take off.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is probably the 'magic app' that causes the tech to go mainstream.
 

This is only 'magic' in the US, because the rest of the world is either (like Europe) not nearly so gun-obsessed as the US, or is (like a lot of the 3rd world) full
of cheap AK47s anyway.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[mhajicek]

Doesn't use standard ammo, unless you know a place to get electrically fused ammo.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh please.. if the goal is to minimize school shootings, then school needs to be fixed. If the kids shouldn't act like prisoners, then school should be run like a prison, for starters. Second, let kids have their scuffles in elementary and junior high.. that way they don't go ballistic in hs.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[h4rr4r]

If the barrels are that short you might as well not have them.

Without significant barrels the bullets will not be going very far or getting there very fast.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

" guns are not reviled by a good 99% of the population so "

In the USA.

This is a really stupid idea. And smart people are working on it. Sigh.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[RevDisk]

I would prefer to be shot at (or even shot, period) with a 9mm handgun or 9mm Uzi than a wood stocked "deer rifle". Statistically, you're very much significantly likely to survive a spray and pray from a 9mm submachinegun than a single rifle round. Happy thoughts.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[blackbear]

Realistically, armed morons with poor judgement hurting bystanders is a lot less of a problem than those same morons getting behind the wheel of a 2000 pound four-wheeled weapon and killing a whole family. At least I can shoot back at stupid or evil gun owners. There's not a lot I can do about stupid, evil, or impaired drivers.

IIRC it was in the same week as that leftist nut-job shot up the Bat Man premier, that a pickup truck carrying more than 20 passengers overturned, killing 14 people. The same number as were killed in the mass shooting. One armed citizen could have stopped BatNut. What do you do about 20 morons in the back of a pickup? Guns truly are not the problem. Stupid and Evil are the problems. And keeping guns out of the hands of responsible citizens because it is thought that it will save lives is both stupid and evil.

So we probably are turning a corner. And, when it's perfected, I hope every law abiding citizen in the world can get their hand on this technology and make at least one gun. No individual, armed or not, can physically force another armed individual to do anything he doesn't want to do. Disarming people simply leaves them at the mercy or those stronger than them. Whereas arming everyone just makes them all equally strong.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[BergZ]

I did a quick google search for "James Eagan Holmes motive": Turns up nothing except for a few old articles saying that the police are still searching for a motive.
Has one been released?

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Bob-taro]

Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast.

Where do you live that these groups don't overlap much?

My thoughts exactly. What tech geek doesn't like to blow stuff up and shoot things?

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Triklyn]

guns may not be the problem, arguable, but they are definitely not the solution. US has something like 2 orders of magnitude more gun related homicides than either the UK or Japan. We're also a fair bit more homicidal in general, something like 3-4 times more homicidal than the british and ~9-10 times more homicidal than the japanese, but that really doesn't account for the 100x more gun homicides per capita.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan

if the website is to be believed, in 2008 japan had 11 gun related homicides. 11. Give everyone a gun, and more likely than not, at least one person is going home in a bodybag. If it were my ideal world, the US would be gunless, and public policy would make it very hard to obtain firearms at all. But this is not an ideal world, and even if we were to make firearm sales illegal tommorow, there is little we can do about all the firearms already in the wild. So attempting it would just be pointless career suicide for any politician. But don't tell me that giving every red-blooded american and his grandmother a gun is the solution. I think what you're proposing is called MAD, and we're still trying to figure out what to do with the damn nukes.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[blackbear]

I did not assert a motive. I wouldn't presume to know. I did, however, assign a political affiliation. That may be in error since I have no absolute proof of one. It's been notoriously difficult to find anything at all about BatNut's personal life. As if someone wants to hide it.

I do notice, however, that when suspected right wingers go nuts and kill people their philosophies, ideologies, and even sexual proclivities are writ large in the sky for us all to see. Of course, crazy doesn't have a political party so it probably doesn't matter in the end. But it seems odd that the big mass shootings seem to be carried out by leftists, and always in a victim disarmament (gun free) zone.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[cowboy76Spain]

A increase rate of fire gives advantage to the attacking parte, who can shot more before anyone can react. Also, the attacker needs way less precission, making quick attacks (with less exporsure for the attacker) more feasible (think of drive-thru shooting, would you like a semi-auto or a full auto for that).

Increase rate of fire and a benefit for quick attack will lead to more stray bullets in the air.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[trout007]

Look up waterproof electric matches.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Sabriel]

OP did not say "semi-automatic uzis". OP just said "uzis". To a computer, the difference between semi-auto and full-auto is just another number. The rest is just materials advancement.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Pfhorrest]

this is probably the 'magic app' that causes the tech to go mainstream

I'm amused that you strategically avoided the usual term we use for the use which makes a technology go mainstream: "killer app".

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[pspahn]

Is going nuts not a good enough motive?

The guy was a med student at Anschutz. That alone could be enough reason to send someone over the edge, especially if you're a little off to begin with. In your eyes, you're just going about your business, trying to build a career for yourself, and you keep getting screwed (however minor) by academia. These things build up.

From my chair, it seemed like the guy developed a case of "Falling Down" and some twisted emotion in his brain made him decide to go shoot up a movie theater (I'm guessing because it was such an easy target yet still had a major impact).

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[couchslug]

Then it's a Second Amendment issue, and like them or not the NRA and other firearms owners associations fight harder for the Second Amendment than anyone else does for any other Constitutional right.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

"We all know that home 3d printers are just a matter of time"

No, we don't.

They've been available for home use for years now. Now, however, they're starting to get cheap.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

"A increase rate of fire gives advantage to the attacking parte, who can shot more before anyone can react. Also, the attacker needs way less precission, making quick attacks (with less exporsure for the attacker) more feasible (think of drive-thru shooting, would you like a semi-auto or a full auto for that)."

Actually, warfare has shown that not to be true, in general.

Adding full-auto fire into the mix generates thousands of wasted rounds for every target that is hit.

Full-auto fire is best used to keep other people's heads down, while you move.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

By the way: that is why full-auto has been removed from most U.S. military small arms.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

"10 thousand rounds is not hard right now, just have 10,000 barrels, each one preloaded with a single shot, fired electrically, no need to strike anything, just a couple of wires. Have this configured as a wearable vest, covered up lightly."

It would be completely useless. In order to be wearable, in both size and weight, the barrels would have to be so short the bullets would have no velocity. You might as well be shooting blanks.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

This.

Usiz are underpowered and sloppy. They are good for 2 things only: (1) making other people duck so you can go from here to there, and (2) crowd control.

That's it.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

America has a very long history of school shootings. The targets are almost universally unarmed lifeforms under the age of 18. You honestly believe that spraying bullets is going to have any effect on the outcome? There's a reason the US military got rid of full auto weapons for the average grunt. Spray and pray led to a huge decrease in accuracy, and thus enemy fatalities per bullet fired. Given that these are at least semi trained 'professionals' I'm going to draw the conclusion that the average 'trench coated' mass murderer is going to be a lot worse off. Maybe the solution then is to given everyone access to full auto weapons, because accuracy will hit rock bottom.

As for the correlation between trench coats and mass shootings, come off it. I've done threat analysis for school shooting scenarios. There is no predicting either the perpetrator, nor the trigger point. The MOSAIC/MAST threat model is bullshit, if for no other reason than the fact that people never use it correctly. I once did a study where law enforcement officers were trained in it, and a control group. They both used it incorrectly, to identify the obvious typical outcasts as the ultimate threats. More importantly, they even did so when working on cases that involved popular students becoming the shooter. The kicker was that our training methodology was actually approved by de Becker & Associates.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[jamstar7]

Guns are very very [b]VERY[/b] illegal in Japan. Pretty much, only criminals own them outside of police and the military. You're not gonna find them on every street corner. Likewise, they;re heavily regulated in the UK.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[cowboy76Spain]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Soldiers are many people expected to be under fire/firing back for an extended period of time(many people * long time firing = lots of ammunition that need to be provided). These soldier will probably be many kilometers away from its original positions. All of this means that automatic fire for military weapons is a serious burden put on logistics, which also have to deal with fuel, food, medical supplies, etc. In these conditions, restricting firepower in order to ensure that ammo is not completely expended makes sense. Also, typically soldiers will have support from heavier weapons for the more complicated points.

In the other hand, criminals are lonely or in small gangs; they typically won't stay several hours in a shootout because they have to flee from the police, and their objective is not usually control of the battlefield. They also usually are in the same city/area where they have their stock/supply. They do not have heavy weapons cover, so they have to rely in the firepower they carry with them. That means than carrying enough ammo for a combat and resupling later is less of a problem, while the additional firepower is more decisive.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

You, my friend have just hit on the problem and futility with criminalizing objects instead of actions.

It's futile to criminalize plants, liquids, chemicals, etc. Unless the politicians learn this, you'll see high-capacity 3d printers banned at a point in the future.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit harsh, but pretty much true. Old doctrine for basically indoor warfare was 9mm submachineguns and grenades. It's changed to short 5.56 rifles.

The Uzi is more accurate than folks think. One can easily put all 32 rounds through a soda bottle at 100ft. On semi. Even full auto is fairly accurate if using short bursts and plenty of training.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[darniil]

Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast.

Hi, I'm a tech geek and a gun fan. That Venn Diagram does overlap. The desire for this tech may still spread quickly, but not because this particular Venn doesn't overlap. (Because, obviously, it does.)

They have been trying to stop digital child porn since the early days of the net, and that is a clearly winnable war.

Clearly? Unfortunately, that's about as winnable as the war on drugs.

I am not too concerned about criminals getting (more) guns, but I am worried about your average slob with poor judgement being empowered like this, since there are far more of them with plenty of good intentions.

What makes you think that the "average slob with poor judgement" will even care about having tech like these printers? When I think of someone like that, I think of the lazy people who called me to fix their DSL and, oh, while I'm at it, to set up their wireless routers. If those people get printers like these, I'm willing to bet they won't be able to find the files needed - or be willing to shell out the money for the building materials - to make these things. On top of that, the important parts of firearms - the slide, the firing pin, the barrel, etc. - are still going to be metal for a long, long time, and even when it's possible to print metals at home, there's still the cost of the raw materials.

No, the "average slob with poor judgement" will not have easy access to unlimited firearms via 3D printers.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Jane Q. Public]

"You are comparing apples and oranges."

Not so much. Since it has been VERY clearly demonstrated over the years that most trained soldiers cannot hit the broad side of a barn with full-auto fire under the best of circumstances, it isn't very reasonable to expect your average criminal with a stolen gun and no practice to do so.

"Additional firepower" is no advantage if you can't hit your target with it.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Razed By TV]

A little bit late for that as well, just replicate yourself (or someone else) another replicator.
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

FP-45 or Deer Gun

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would think they would look to something like the FP-45 Liberator or Deer gun which were basically single use disposable handguns that the US made for resistance fighters in WWII and Vietnam. While they were intended to be reloaded their primary function was to be a one time use and to be dropped behind enemy lines to be picked up by resistance fighters. They were dirt cheap to make and in my mind this seems like it would fill a similar function as it would basically be 1 time use.

44 special or .410 shotgun would make more sense.

[mdarksbane]

A 22 LR is a wimpy little cartridge, but it actually has a fairly high max pressure to it.

A 38 special or 44 special round has significantly lower maximum rated pressure, and pushes a bullet that is useful for more than pest control. Shotgun shells require even less strength in your chamber.

But I don't really see the point when anyone can build a working single-shot muzzle loader out of a length of pipe you can get at any hardware store.

They are misrepresenting their motivations

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched the video. The speaker did a good job of *looking* like he's contemplating important philosophical issues, but I think they're being dishonest about their real motivations.

Yes, it is legitimately fascinating to take a huge step in moving production so much closer to the person who wants something. It's also legitimately fascinating to contemplate how this will affect government regulation that depends on us not being able to manufacture some of the things we want.

But, if they're real motivations were to seriously examine these issues, they could have chosen to manufacture something less inflammatory than a gun.

I predict...

[eugene2k]

Soon the murder weapon will be rather tricky to find...

Usefulness

[genkernel]

While this would be a useful tool to keep alive the 2nd Amendment should gun control actually begin disarming the US public, I have some concerns that the primary use of this design will be something else. Now of course, trying to keep technology like this down would be silly and it may already exist in some more obscure corner of the internet, but it probably isn`t something I would put money towards.

Lets assume that the gun this produces is reliable, but only a one or two shot weapon. It is plastic and evades metal detectors (ok, perhaps the bullets don`t), It small and concealable, it is a handgun. It has a relatively low cost. Some types of crime would benefit from such a weapon becoming readily available. Smaller armed robberies could make use of this, as well as people looking for an extra means of self defense should one of your associates turn on you. Burglars could be more likely to have guns. Regular citizens would have some trouble owning these guns under certain gun-control laws, since if the police finds them, you're in trouble, which might not be the case for other weapons. If you submit one of these for registration, you missed part of the point that these guys are fundraising for.

That said, I believe the use to the US militia will be relatively small unless gun control actually begins to prevent people from actually owning rifles and handguns to a significant portion of the population which has not happened yet, and due to the power of the (perhaps somewhat idiotic) NRA lobby, is unlikely to happen soon. Given the choice between this and a metal handgun, you choose the metal handgun unless you have to conceal it from, say, a metal detector. Having only one handgun shot probably won't help you that much against the armored government agents you'd be up against should a revolution actually occur.

Yeah Right

[SuperKendall]

Not easy to get in Canada. You need a Firearms license to purchase them.

Or to drive across the border and get them easily, just like so many Canadians do with clothes and other items...

If you've ever driven across the Canadian border, you'd realize this is not exactly hard to do.

Re:Yeah Right

[tmosley]

Yeah, you only get anally raped on the way into the US, not on the way out.

Re:Yeah Right

[SuperKendall]

Exactly, so you can bring in all the bullets you like. When I drove into Canada they basically waved me through.

this is a really stupid idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Raising $20,000 to have a VERY expensive Stratasys machine make what can be done using $5 worth of junk from Home Depot and a hacksaw could accomplish is ridiculous. Whoever invests in this deserves what they get, which is nothing even remotely innovative or useful.

Thanks for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now more gun nuts can arm themselves and be dangerous. Hooray technology!

Everytime science invents something great, there's always an asshole lurking in the shadows ready to take that technology and make a weapon out of it.

Can't wait to see gangs printing their own weapons. And it will be because of assholes like these with their "defense" project.

If the government ever wanted a 100% legitimate reason to police the internet and snoop, it's because of this kind of project. They are enabling future censorship and lack of privacy out of their own misguided need for more weapons.

The first mass-market application?

[kent_eh]

I was certain that the porn industry would be the first "killer app" that would bring 3D printing out of the workshops and into the hands (etc...) of the general public.
There is certainly precedent.
Though, I suppose humans being what we are, that finding new exciting ways to use technology to kill each other isn't much of a surprise.

Re:The first mass-market application?

[zerosomething]

You are on the right track but being too specific. It's all about the most annoying and potentially illegal thing you can do with open and free access to information and technology. Guns and access to guns represent probably "The" most politically controversial object on the pennant. Now guns have become data and data is meant to be free and open to all, no restrictions. It really messes with most people's idea of "open and free".

Re:The first mass-market application?

[Darth Snowshoe]

Maybe someone can design some 3-d printable forceps for late-term abortions?

Re:The first mass-market application?

[scorp1us]

Bongs? Vibrators?

why is it always guns?

[spidercoz]

Why not come up with designs for a 3D printed bike? Or an ultralight airplane? Or agricultural tools? Or furniture? Or a cotton gin? Or houses? Or any of a million other things which have functions other than killing?

Fucking Texas... full of barbarians in stupid hats. You have in your hands the greatest revolution in fabrication since the assembly line and all you can think of to do with it is make guns. Just fuck off. Civilization doesn't need you.

Re:why is it always guns?

[Darth Snowshoe]

This. A million times this. DOES IT DAWN ON YOU ALL THAT NOONE IN AMERICA IS HAVING ANY PROBLEMS GETTING ANY GUNS? THEE ARE MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE! Try thinking of something else for a moment!

Plus, if you're really worried about the UN jackbooted thugs coming to take your guns away, reprap probably won't help you much. The feds will soon have an indefinitely large supply of drones, military robots, persistent surveillance, ballistic armor, over-the-horizon standoff weaponry, OH, and they're monitoring your cellphone, your land lines, your emails, etc. Please, by all means, make a zip gun that shoots a 22 shell. That will hold off the UN hordes. (Maybe it would have been wiser to limit the defense budget decades ago, if this is really what you are worried about, Mr. Live-Free-Or-Die?)

Re:why is it always guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think it's "always" guns?

The answer is nothing. Nothing made you think that. You just made it up because it's easier to knock over strawmen than to actually have an honest discussion.

Re:why is it always guns?

[goodmanj]

Their idea is stupid, but you're missing its point. The idea is that guns, more than othermanufactured items, are heavily regulated by state and federal law. The goal is to hack the legal system surrounding gun control, rendering them pointless, in the same way that digital media hacked copyright law, rendering it moot (they say).

I think their plan is stupid (and I said so elsewhere), but there's more to it than just "LET'S MAKE MOAR GUNZ CUZ GUNZ ARE COOL".

Re:why is it always guns?

[TheMathemagician]

Why is it always America? Does it dawn on you that less than 5% of the world is American? This could be very disruptive technology in many countries.

I'munna

[Anonymous Coward]

print me a .50 cal derringer an' go squirrel huntin'. Hell yeah man, I'ms gonna dooit.

I already uploaded my design!

[FilmedInNoir]

It's a fully working gun. Some people call it a bomb though. It's a fully working bomb.

Aww how helpful

[GameboyRMH]

What a kind and noble goal, what the world really needs is more cheap and widely available weapons!

Re:Aww how helpful

[ErikZ]

Weapons do the will of their wielder, and nothing more.

To decry weapons in the hands of people, is to say that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

Re:Aww how helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

What a kind and noble goal, what the world really needs is more cheap and widely available weapons!

The world needs more cheap and widely avaliable everything.There, FTFY.

Re:Aww how helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does, maybe people could fight back against oppressive governments are free themselves.

Re:Aww how helpful

[Darth Snowshoe]

"To decry weapons in the hands of people, is to say that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions."

Why does this argument apply to handguns, but not say bazookas, flamethrowers, rocket-propelled grenades? Why can't the people be trusted to make their own best decisions with bazookas?

We all consent to allow the government to have a monopoly on violence. That's what, for instance, police officers are for. They're our representatives who we've given some powers to that we believe ordinary citizens shouldn't have. If you feel like it's your job to carry around a gun and shoot people who are going postal, then maybe you should consider becoming a police officer.

There's no connotation that what they're hoping to produce with a reprap would have any practical use other than shooting people. That's one thing I object to. Oh hey, just while I'm typing this, lookee at the new headline that just popped up: "Several People Shot Near the Empire State Building". Yeah, I trust everybody in America to make sane, reasonable choices with regard to guns.

Re: 44 special or .410 shotgun would make more sen

[scorp1us]

That's why they picked it. No 3D printed "gun" will ever hold up to real ammunition. Your best best is ceramics. However lets consider steel for a second. 3D printed steel is sintered which means bits of steel are pressed together with bits of brass. They they bake it so the brass flows and locks the steel in place. You're only as strong as your binding material, here, brass so you would need a very thick barrel (hand cannon sized) to survive the expansion of gasses. Rather you could build something of low-quality and relatively disposable, save for the barrel and some parts of the action - like the firing pin and spring.

However for your homemade gun, you could always use a service like emachineshop.com where you can upload your designs and have them machine it (the software will even tell you how much it'll cost) Since pins and barrels are not regulated, you should be able to order without worry.

The upper though, which is regulated does not need to be made very structurally sound and can be printed in your home out of plastic.

Sintering

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

When can I get a 3d laser sintering machine instead. I wan METAL stuff.

Oh that explains it ...

[tgd]

The reason for the "how can I skip town on short notice" post this morning makes a lot more sense now ...

Prior Art

[necro81]

Bah - that's nothing. John Malkovitch beat you all to it, back in 1993.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This will make school shootings a lot easier.

They'll end up banning 3d printers

[BobbyLang]

They'll end up banning this tech if they keep making guns and only guns with them. I bet the big corps are just looking for an excuse-

Anti-freedom idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement indicates deep ignorance. You obviously have near ZERO ability to think outside the box. Also, guns are already trivially easy to get hold of in most places.

Guns!

[ThePeices]

Guns! fuck yeah!

Shooting people to death! fuck yeah!

USA...USA...USA...USA!!!!!

amiright?

Re:Guns!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Almost 50,000 deaths from firearms in 2010, counting all sources...it's just terrible, isn't it?

Too bad that medical malpractice killed 195,000 people in the US in 2010, but doctors don't use guns, so it's all good, amiright?

Re:Guns!

[unix_core]

Are you suggesting that private gun ownership is as benificial as healthcare? With the US having the highest rate of gun related injuries amongst developed countries you'd think especially gun nuts would realize the need.

live in the city and you'll feel differently

[SuperBanana]

Ironically, I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government (especially cops). Rationale? The stranger is merely an unknown, but government has proven over and over again that they are willing to use deadly force as a means to achieve their agenda (both inside and outside the border) -- regardless of whether that agenda is moral and just.

Really? A few weeks ago, a guy in a neighboring city threatened his upstairs neighbors with a shotgun because he thought they'd stolen his turtle. I shit you not. He ran a bunch of shells through the chamber and waved the gun at them. They scooped a shell on the floor as proof, slammed the door, hid, and called 911.

Police confiscated three live green 12-guage shotgun shells, a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun, a Ruger 40-caliber handgun, a Ruger 45-caliber handgun, a large capacity Ruger magazine, two machete type knives, a box of .22-caliber bullets, a box of 46 5.56 rounds, a box of 18 .45 rounds, three boxes of .22-caliber rounds, a box of .38 rounds and numerous loose rounds of ammunition.

At the moment, our city has been racking up several shootings a day; a week or two ago we had two QUADRUPLE shootings in the space of a few hours. When the police are forced to draw weapons it's practically front-page news, and a police shooting is covered heavily. It's pretty rare that the shootings are fatal, too, in part because its called in to EMS, who may even already know to be in the area - and because the police can supply first-responder treatment.

Right now "strangers" have a body-count about 20-40x the police; our local PD are at "1" and that was a few days ago for a guy who was told, at gunpoint, to drop his gun. He turned and brought the weapon towards them, and they shot and killed him.

Every time I hear some asshole talking about how he should have the right to carry a gun and the world would be a safer place if he and everyone else could, they're from suburbia or a rural area. We already have that. And all it is getting us is a lot of robberies, muggings, store/bank holdups, drive-by shootings, and so on.

Re:live in the city and you'll feel differently

[robkeeney]

Let me guess, you live in Chicago.

"We already have that." No, you don't already have that. You live in an urban fascist hell where guns are de facto banned, but every gang banger has one and there is much violent crime.

I on the other hand, do have that. I live in a state that recognizes my God given right to arms. I live in an area where there are lots and lots and LOTS of guns. Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun. Many of us carry them. Shootings in my area are rare.

So explain to me why it is that in places, like where I live, which have very high rates of gun ownership among the general populace, crime is low, yet in places like where you live where it's nearly impossible for the common honest citizen to legally get a gun, crime is high?

Old generation technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, forget about printing 3d guns, print 3d remote hunter-killer drones.

This!

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way whenever slashdot runs stories on "biohacking." It's not new, there are more easier/more efficient ways to do the exact same things, but because someone presented a story with all the right buzzwords suddenly it's revolutionary.

what?

[SuperBanana]

Most organizations worldwide are moving off the dollar and away from US-based businesses for financial support and advice because they've become a militant government that commits acts of economic terrorism.

[citation, not oddball global conspiracy nutter generalism, required]

Currency use has to do with the currency's valuation and ease of use. Nobody gives a shit about politics when it comes to money except for other governments.

boys want a cool toy

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a plea for an armed public. they want an industrial quality 3d printer and cant afford it. I really wish i had thought of this scam myself as it would be fun to play around with.

That is of course me assuming that they are intelligent. they could be deluded/dumb enough to not know why this wouldnt work for anything more than a 1 round gut gun. No accuracy, poor gas seal around the projectile, and no chance of a lethal follow on shot (you might be able to extract the spent casing from the 22 and load a fresh one, but the barrel would be so shot out by the first round that the pressure wouldnt be enough to propel the bullet at lethal speeds) Are just the first reason why this is pointless. Even supporting their goal of an armed populous it can be done much cheaper without the need for a 3d printer. A trip to your local hardware store would get you everything you need from the plumbing isle. O, and as an added bonus the federal government has already released complete instructions on how to do it. with the much more lethal 9 mm over 40 years ago, all in the public domain.

But hey I support the market economy where the stupid are separated from their money. So here's to you guys I hope you are smart guys looking to fund a 3d printer, and in that case best of luck

So everyone should have a nuclear-suitcase device?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every successful society places SOME KIND of limits on individual freedoms. Sorry, but that is the reality.

There are enough psychos and assholes that only a few with disproportianate power results in massive evil.

Sorry, just the way the world (including human psychology and failings) work.

Either accept the reality of this, or don't. But if you do not - then don't go all half-cocked about science deniers, etc.

Re: 44 special or .410 shotgun would make more sen

[goodmanj]

I have a feeling emachineshop.com will refuse to make you anything obviously intended to kill people. Their terms of use allow them to refuse for any reason, and it's just not worth it from a public relations perspective.

OMG - homemade weapons!!!! How...novel? Not very

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, why bother? You can make a weapon capable a firing much more powerful ammunition from parts you can buy at a hardware store, a few hand tools and for a lot less money. Hell, the Viet Cong were able to replicate functional 1911 .45ACP semi-auto pistols in some village hut (http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museum/the-galleries/ever-vigilant/case-66-a-war-in-korea/handmade-vietnamese-1911-pattern-pistol.aspx). Making a firearm with basic power tools you can buy from Walmart is a walk in the park. There is nothing complex about a firearm - especially a single shot firearm. Maybe not pretty, but definitely functional.

Plastic chamber and barrel?

[nurb432]

No thanks. ( and a few other parts. )

Kids with guns

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't think of a worse idea. kids with guns :S

Ammendment 4.1: The right to not be shot by others

[TiggertheMad]

. No individual, armed or not, can physically force another armed individual to do anything he doesn't want to do. Disarming people simply leaves them at the mercy or those stronger than them. Whereas arming everyone just makes them all equally strong.

You are 100% correct in your statement. But here is where I have a problem with the whole 'right to bear arms' thing. I agree with the libertarian ideals about being allowed to do anything that doesn't harm others which is a basic pillar most of the same pro-gun arguments make.The problem I see is, my risk of being harmed by those with criminal or evil intent is far far smaller than the risk I have of being harmed by the honest, hard-working salt of the earth guy down the block who has the best of intentions and makes just one mistake, because there are thousands of the latter for every one of the former.

Oddly enough you need a gun drill.

[trout007]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_drill

Sounds Like a Job For...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Mythbusters!

Challenge: Can you make an all plastic barrel capable of firing five .22 shells and hitting a target at 25 yards. (or meters, your choice)

POINT legal-interpretation-dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your paraphrase/interpretation is flawed. The reg ONLY prohibits individual manufacture of non-sporting semi-autos rifles and shotguns IF IT IS MADE from restricted IMPORTED parts -- Which is pretty clearly in there as a defense against foreign elements stirring up trouble and/or insurrection with imported / foreign-supplied guns and parts.

Re:POINT legal-interpretation-dept.

[Feyshtey]

Actually it's perfectly correct. It's just not the right evidence. The reciever is the part that has the serial number, and because one of the ATF definitions of a "firearm" explicitely statest that it can be just the reciever.

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.

Other regulations state that it's perfectly legal to craft a "firearm" without registration for personal use, so long as it neither falls into a class III weapon category (machinegun, mortar, etc.) and that it will not be sold or distributed.

If a "firearm" is by ATF definition the reciever, and you may craft your own "firearm" for personal use, logically it follows that it's perfectly legal to craft a reciever.

Re:POINT legal-interpretation-dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your paraphrase/interpretation is flawed. The reg ONLY prohibits individual manufacture of non-sporting semi-autos rifles and shotguns IF IT IS MADE from restricted IMPORTED parts -- Which is pretty clearly in there as a defense against foreign elements stirring up trouble and/or insurrection with imported / foreign-supplied guns and parts.

No, it's not.

It's in there to support the ban in the 1968 Gun Control Act on importing military surplus (or otherwise non-sporting) weapons*, by preventing the simple circumvention of teardown to parts, importing these parts, and rebuilding on an US manufactured, non-NFA receiver.

*Which was principally a simple protectionist measure to shield the American gun industry from the flood of cheap Mausers, Enfields, etc. at the time; not only does this score points for JFK's (who authored a failed bill to this effect in '58, as a senator) and Thomas Dodd's (sponsor of the '68 Gun Control Act) home states of MA & CT, respectively, which contained a large chunk of the gun industry, it also made the industry less likely to fight against the GCA's other provisions.

Gyrojet

[AJWM]

Several posters have rightly pointed out the problems with 'printing' a whole gun, namely the need for hardened and high-pressure-resistant parts.

However, if you put that requirement in the ammo instead and make the gun essentially a rocket launcher, like the Gyrojet weapons developed in the 1960s, you probably could print the whole thing (except maybe for some springs).

Problem is that since nobody (AFAIK) makes Gyrojet ammo any more, the rounds -- which were never cheap compared to conventional ammo -- now cost in the range of $100 a piece.

Re:Ammendment 4.1: The right to not be shot by oth

[Jane Q. Public]

"The problem I see is, my risk of being harmed by those with criminal or evil intent is far far smaller than the risk I have of being harmed by the honest, hard-working salt of the earth guy down the block who has the best of intentions and makes just one mistake, because there are thousands of the latter for every one of the former."

Except: that's not the way the math really works out. Your proportions are off, so it's a false fear. Americans of recent generations really have been pretty terrible at actual risk-assessment.

We already know, statistically, that in the U.S., firearms are used legally to prevent crime vastly more often than they are by criminals to injure or kill average citizens. (The statistics might be different if you are another criminal, because that's where the large majority of shootings occur: between criminals.) "Preventing a crime" includes when the attacker turns and runs at the mere sight of a gun in the defender's hands. And those are just the reported cases.

More statistics: for almost 30 years now, major crime (felony theft, burglaries, rapes, murders, etc.) has been going steadily down. Not just a little, but a lot! (Tragically, according to polls, people say they feel less safe today then they did 30 years ago, which is completely the opposite of what the actual statistics say. You can thank your government and news media for that.)

However, during that same time period, per-capita gun ownership in the United States has been going steadily up! This information (except for the polls) comes straight from the Department of Justice.

Believe it or not, mass shootings like Columbine and the recent theater shooting are DOWN from what they were decades ago. School shootings in particular are also DOWN from what they were before.

The difference is that then, when something happened, you'd read about it in the paper 2 days later on page 4. Today, it's splashed all over the television and internet within the hour.

No wonder people feel less safe. But it's not true. They are much, much safer than they were 30 years ago. And guns have nothing to do with it.

Re:Ammendment 4.1: The right to not be shot by oth

[Jane Q. Public]

Quote myself:

"And guns have nothing to do with it."

What I meant was: the statistics do not link gun ownership to higher crime or accident rates. The real statistics have been saying the opposite: gun ownership has gone up. Crime and accidents have gone down.

Wow

[ThatsNotPudding]

I read TFS and all I think of is 'Sovereign Citizens' and the folks that have dreamed up new phrases that are the functional equivalent to shouting the n-word.

So they're building a zipgun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Far back in the day, youth-gang members who wanted guns managed to cobble them together from metal tubing with a frame made of wood. They were called "zipguns." A zipgun derived the energy to drive a firing pin against the primer (or in the case of a round of .22 LR, the base) from a rubber band which was used to drive a nail onto the primer to provide the shock necessary for primer activation.

Zipguns were wildly dangerous because the engineering approach of the people who made them was essentially, "Duuuuuuh, that looks good!" and paid little if any attention to the strength of the materials involved, often producing that least-fortunate of dicey firearms phenomena: "It will fire, but it will also *explode*"

I've seen some scary-strong polymers, but I don't think anyone is going to find anything printable that is going to be able to repeatedly withstand the shock-loading and heat of firing even the weakest bullet.

I think it all boils down to: "Frame? Sure! Barrel? Not so much..."

Pistollatio can be fatal

[Anonymous Coward]

http://defensedistributed.com/faq/why-guns/

"Guns prove out some of our younger generations’ beliefs about information and sharing at an extremity. If we truly believe information should be free, that the internet is the last bastion of freedom and knowledge, and that societies that share are superior to societies that censor and withhold, then why not guns?

The firearm has pride of place in underlining an individual’s significance as a moral agent."

Piss off, please.

Re:Ammendment 4.1: The right to not be shot by oth

[TiggertheMad]

Wow, I have to say this on /.

correlation != causality