Slashdot Mirror
Wiki Weapon Project Test-Fires a (Partly) 3D-Printed Rifle
MrSeb writes "In its continuing mission to build a 'Wiki Weapon,' Defense Distributed has 3D printed the lower receiver of an AR-15 and tested it to failure. The printed part only survives the firing of six shots, but for a first attempt that's quite impressive. And hey, it's a plastic gun. Slashdot first covered 3D-printed guns back in July. The Defense Distributed group sprung up soon after, with the purpose of creating an open-source gun — a Wiki Weapon — that can be downloaded from the internet and printed out. The Defense Distributed manifesto mainly quotes a bunch of historical figures who supported the right to bear arms. DefDist (its nickname) is seeking a gun manufacturing license from the ATF, but so far the feds haven't responded. Unperturbed, DefDist started down the road by renting an advanced 3D printing machine from Stratasys — but when the company found out what its machine was being used for, it was repossessed. DefDist has now obtained a 3D printer from Objet, which seemingly has a more libertarian mindset. The group then downloaded HaveBlue's original AR-15 lower receiver from Thingiverse, printed it out on the Objet printer using ABS-like Digital Material, screwed it into an AR-57 upper receiver, loaded up some FN 5.7x28mm ammo, and headed to the range. The DefDist team will now make various modifications to HaveBlue's design, such as making it more rugged and improving the trigger guard, and then upload the new design to Thingiverse." Sensible ammo choice; 5.7x28mm produces less recoil than the AR-15's conventional 5.56mm. I wonder how many of the upper's components, too, can one day be readily replaced with home-printable parts — for AR-15 style rifles, the upper assembly is where the gun's barrel lives, while the lower assembly (the part printed and tested here) is the legally controlled part of the firearm.
And hey, it's a plastic gun.
No, it's not. It's not even close to that. It's a plastic lower receiver with the rest of the gun being not plastic.
As someone who's taken gun safety, I'm shocked he put himself at risk to test this. Making a shooting bench is fairly trivial. Automating a trigger pulling mechanism is a little more difficult but would require very basic knowledge. I'm surprised someone with access to a 3D printer would be stupid enough to pull a plastic lower receiver up to his face, put his hand on it and pull the trigger until it failed. In gun safety they show you what even an obstructed barrel can result in when firing a gun. That action mechanism would basically become shrapnel for your right hand, left forearm and face.
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they probably should 3D print something that will prevent them from winning a Darwin award.
My work here is dung.
I wonder what having techie types with superior firepower as the societal norm will do to the prevalent stereotype.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
Well, hell, if this qualfies as a plastic gun, then so is my Sig SP2022, and it survives a lot more than 6 rounds. A plastic lower is just a frame; just like my Sig, or Glocks, or numerous other firearms, the actual firing mechanisms(trigger assembly for lower; barrel, firing pin, chamber, and numerous other parts for the upper) are still made of metal.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The recievers on Glock handguns are plastic, just to point out. Obviously, its possible to make plastic guns, just not by replacing plastic with metal
Barrels, springs and working parts are the only thing that needs to be made out of metal.
also 5.7x28 is a terrible calibre. Its pistol ammo, that at best has the knockdown and kick of 9mm, and at worst is an expensive non-standard cartridge. Its far overhyped, and far overrated.
Is it too early to set up a kickstarter to pay for the finger reattachment that one of these plucky alpha testers is going to earn himself?
"So, um, guys, I'm working on a project that will involve briefly generating an overpressure of up to 50 thousand PSI accompanied by a release of heat, probably not more than a dozen cycles within a one minute period. It's handheld. What 3d-printable thermoplastic would be best?"
Object and Stratasys have completed their merger yesterday, so we'll see about that "libertarian mindset"...
Since the lower receiver is the "regulated" part of the AR-15 (the part that the ATF considers to be the actual gun), isn't think rather illegal?
Home-made rifles are completely legal, you just can't sell or otherwise distribute them. The plans for them, on the other hand, you can distribute, hence the project.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
You can build guns for private use, you don't even need to stamp a registration number on it. Until you transfer the gun to some other party you are in the clear, and even then there are some exceptions I believe.
Of course, you'll still have to follow the retarded rule about having a certain percentage be American parts if in America, but hey...AK parts kits are cheap and not that hard to build.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning
Because of the weapon's design, the receiver on an AR-15 is a notoriously easy part to produce, and has been possible to produce on low-end CNC mills for years. It's not in any way the most difficult part of the weapon to produce; it's just the outer housing within which the actual functional parts are located. Sort of like printing a computer case but not printing what goes inside the case.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not sure if you're joking or European.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Why that round? It's not a rifle round (making the "printable rifle" really a "printable carbine") and it's not even a standard AR rifle round (which is traditionally 5.56x45, but the design is flexible..).
I would think for initial builds you'd want to at least target the baseline round for an AR, 5.56x45, or if they really want to work out the bugs, 7.62x51 NATO, which is a much more powerful cartridge and thus making the design guaranteed to be backwards compatible (from a strength perspective) with 5.56x45.
If they start with the really small cartridge like 5.7x28, their design won't scale up.
And the 5.7 is a weird round to choose anyway. Apocryphally, it was designed to be some super high velocity round designed to defeat bullet resistant vests when you used the right ammo, which they stopped selling to consumers. I think it really was part of a whole paramilitary/protection system of weapons designed to replace the use of 9mm handguns and MP5 submachine guns.
over the previous version of the printer which only printed a 2D version of an AR-15.
One of the main problems with the earlier version is that, when trying to load the printed rifle, the bullets just seems to roll right off.
Also, paper cuts were a problem.
In the past, one could buy raw frames and receivers, put the parts on, and have a fully functioning firearm except sans a serial number.
These days, the frames have to be 80% finishes (the customer has to do the last part) to be legal with BATF.
What I'm waiting for is the changes in NFA/BATF policy to deal with the printed lower receivers. I doubt they would require barrels or other parts to be serialized, but who knows.
I'm posting from the future here, and I just wanted to say that printing an AR-15 is a total newb move. In 2043, if you've got 1337 skillz, you torrent and print your own aircraft carrier.
While the lower receiver doesn't see the kind of stresses that are present in the upper receiver and bolt carrier, the lower receiver failed exactly where it sees the most real stress. As the bolt carrier moves backwards during the ejection phase of the cycle, it compresses the buffer spring and that stress plus the stress caused by the stock attachment was more than the lower could handle.
Personally, whenever I test fire a gun, I put it in an appropriate test jig and make sure I'm clear from any likely failure. I don't think his gun would have blown up, but if the lower failed just as the bolt carrier began moving rearward, it's likely that the carrier and upper would have been damaged and things would have gotten interesting.
I shot an conventionally made AR-15 that suffered a catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and in spite of the bolt carrier coming back much faster than normal, everything held together just fine. If such an event happened with a printed plastic lower, it's likely that the gun would have been damaged badly.
I've seen prices on 3d printing for metal and the prices to render a standard lower receiver would have greatly exceeded the cost of buying a conventionally manufactured one.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
The government should have a monopoly on violence
Oh, wow, not sure if you've intended it that way, but what a great way to sum up the government's goals.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Sounds like you should be posting in the 3D printed tinfoil hat thread.
Bow before me, for I am root.
It's not illegal to manufacture your own firearms in US.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Yeah, you can't make the other parts out of plastic because of the pressure from the round, but you could reduce the pressure and projectile speed making it a lot less lethal but still usable for targets and defense. There really isn't much between paintball/airsoft and lethal firearms. I wonder if there would be a market for people wanting something like that.
Area man uses CNC machine and metalsmithing lathe to build a gun! Complete with Barrel, upper and lower receiver!
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Um... because lethal one's are easier?
Seriously, what kind of non-lethal weapon could you even make with a 3D printer? a plastic stick?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
building a title 1 gun (e.g. a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle or handgun, i.e. not a machine gun, short barrel rifle/shotgun, destructive device, any other weapon or other firearm with restrictions on their possession or transfer) is perfectly legal without a manufacturing license as long as it is for personal use only and not built with the intention of transfering it. in fact, you can even sell it down the line if you want to as long as it wasn't built with that intention.
All this 'gun printing' talk is what's going to be used to help get 3dprinters banned or require a license to even buy/own. it's going to have controls slapped on it somewhere.
Stop fucking telling people that doing this shit guys. Until they are everywhere they are way easy to regulate and control.
You're not helping. serious.
Dear AC who cannot form a cogent sentence:
We refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Even the pressure necessary for match grade air rifles would be too much for plastics. That is, if you want any real accuracy.
Home CNC are getting more popular too, and you can make real guns in there entirety, a 3d printed AR-15 Lower receiver is pretty boring,
I've always thought the registered part should be the barrelled chamber and or upper receiver, thats the actual hard part to make.
More importantly people have been making home made guns for hundreds of years, now they have a tool to make it slightly more precisely this changes nothing just a bunch of pussy city folk all worked up over nothing
Because the Americans pretty much see it as human right to have lethal weapons available. You know, just in case you happen to need to kill someone.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of defensive firearm uses are carried out without a single shot fired. But yes, people more than occasionally need to defend themselves with lethal force.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
They've made barrels that are a sleeve of fairly thin metal wrapped in fiberglass before. I think it was mostly a gimmick and never caught on though. That'd probably be the minimum amount of metal you could get away with in theory, a sleeve for the chamber and rifling, wrapped up with reinforcement.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
All this 'gun printing' talk is what's going to be used to help get 3dprinters banned or require a license to even buy/own. it's going to have controls slapped on it somewhere.
Stop fucking telling people that doing this shit guys. Until they are everywhere they are way easy to regulate and control.
You're not helping. serious.
Yeah, guys, quit exercising your first and second amendment rights before we're not allowed to exercise them anymore.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
The government should have a monopoly on violence as it is the role of government to control weapons. Do we really want this?
Really? I'm at a loss to this statement specifically.
And no I really don't want the gov't to control all weapons (btw weapon could be knife/bat/any blunt object/etc. just saying). I know the Do we really want this was for something else, and to that, Yeah I think it's neat. Have no issue with this.
For fairness, I own 1 black powder rifle for hunting, 1 shotgun for hunting. I do have a pistol permit in NYS (pita to get in NYS and I can't carry in NYC) but no pistols.
The government should never have a monopoly on violence, as it will inevitably abuse that monopoly. Free people must always have the option to resist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The government should have a monopoly on violence
Had that been true in the mid- to late 1700s, the United States would still be a set of British colonies. Within American political theory, at least, possession of arms by the common citizen is of critical importance to political freedom, since it provides the ultimate recourse should the political process be subverted so that it no longer recognizes the will of the people. This is the reason why the ability to manufacture arms at home is of value, because such self-manufactured arms cannot be regulated.
I realize many people have such deep faith in the inevitability of democratic processes that this seems silly. Personally, I hope they're right, because armed rebellions are very messy, nasty affairs, and there's no guarantee that what comes out the other end will be an improvement. But I see great value in preserving the option.
(To head off a common objection: Yes, 50 million people armed with rifles can successfully defeat a few hundred thousand armed with tanks and military aircraft. The first step is to use the rifles to acquire tanks and military aircraft. Even a few thousand people armed with rifles and improvised explosives can pose a serious challenge to a much larger modern military force, though not defeat it. In practice, merely having sufficient arms to force an open conflict would probably be enough to get a large portion of the military to refuse to fire on their fellow citizens, if not outright join them.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Because there are no non-lethal weapons. There are only less lethal weapons.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A busted beer bottle can be a weapon, or just a busted bottle. It all depends on the responsibility of the person holding it.
It makes no sense to me to panic about printing a firearm, or pieces of it, when I know any dumbass could just as likely run me over with his/her car while texting on their phone. Point is, address the problem of bad decision making instead. Running around making prohibitions just causes people to be more sneaky about obtaining said item anyway.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Citation required.
I occasionally see vehicles with no hood whatsoever (or having an obviously fiberglass part, pinned down). I have yet to see any of them surrounded by angry tin stars, with the owner on the ground, trussed up like a chicken.
Because the Americans pretty much see it as human right to defend oneself from possible government tyranny. You know, just in case the government wants to run roughshod over its people.
FTFY
And before you say, "that will never happen", think of all the other times in history it has happened and how history repeats itself.
And before you say, "the government has bombs", do you think bombs will win the "war on terror"?
No, it's a basis for Western political theory. Though the GP should have said State not Government. There's nothing sinister implied by it. It simply means that only the state can condone violence. One state can attack another (a war), one person can't attack another (a fistfight or worse).
As with all rights, though, with this right the state is burdened with obligations. The most salient is the obligation to protect its own citizens. So, the state must supply a police force (to protect against people) and a military (to protect against other states).
Perhaps your mind immediately jumped to the worst-case scenario: a totalitarian, Nazi-like government that infringes on the rights of the people. In that case, the state would be in violation of its obligations, and would lose its right to a monopoly on violence.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
This is a PR stunt. It's not like guns are expensive or hard to get in the US. It's not good engineering, either. If you're going to design a plastic gun, design a plastic gun, accepting that it's weaker than metal but you can form more complex parts. Maybe the whole trigger assembly can be made in one piece, with flexible parts. Replacing individual parts from a metal gun with inferior plastic parts is a PR stunt.
3D printed plastic parts tend to be weaker than injection-moulded plastic parts. The bonds between layers are weak. For the RepRap/MakerBot extruder type machines, the bonds are pathetically weak. Those machine work by trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing. That never bonds well.
Let's revisit that:
"...with the purpose of creating an open-source gun [...] that can be downloaded from the internet and printed out."
Right, because what's really holding back modern society is this frustrating lack of weapons availability. I can hardly wait for 3D nano printers so EVERYBODY can download their own Ebola virus from the internet and print it at home!
Do you imply that it would be better if only the wealthy (and criminals who steal their guns) could afford them?
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
How are guns any more dangerous than blenders?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Is is just the stripped lower that is plastic, or is it the whole thing including the buffer tube?
Remember that tube that the stock attaches to isn't just for that, it contains the recoil spring and buffer. The bolt carrier flies back against the buffer, in to that tube, and is then pushed back in to position by the spring. If it broke, you could get a face/arm full of spring and so on.
I wouldn't worry about this being a source of cheap guns considering that you can get a real gun that actually works and shoots a powerful round for about $90 +tax. Granted that firearm would be a Russian M91/30 or M44 and would shoot the 7.62x54r cartridge but those are still more potent and probably more accurate than the stupid thing these guys are trying to make. If you really wanted a handgun you can cut down the barrel on one of those M91/30s or M44s and chop the stock like what was done during WWII by some resistance fighters who then had a bolt action pistol.
Time to offend someone
It isn't a plastic gun any more than any other gun that has a plastic receiver is. The barrel, chamber, bolt, firing pin, hammer, etc, etc, etc are all still metal. This "OMG WE CAN PRINT A GUN!!!!11one" stuff is stupid.
Yes, you can make the receiver, the low stress part, out of plastic. Big deal, this has happened for a long time. The barrel and chamber are the parts that face stress. Try that and see how it goes... But fire it remotely if you value your face n' fingers.
I am saying that more weapons are a benefit to nobody except those selling them.
If I'm implying anything it's "If you're stupid enough to try to use a 3D printer to make a weapon, and then use it, then I don't trust you with weapons."
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Until Leo Szilard made him famous. You can argue about a theorem, but you can't argue with a nuke. When the next Leo prints an AR-15 and shoots his critics, then Gutenburg will be as glorious as Einstein, and nobody will fuck with a publisher. Someday, they will have a printer that can build an Abrams M1A2. Of course, that tank will be a rare antique by then, but I'll be the first to order one.
1st Amendment meets 2nd Amendment, and they kick ass - William Randolph Hearst had wet dreams about this.
Don't nit-pick. I didn't confuse 'can't' with 'isn't allowed to', my word choice was perfectly valid. You would have a point if I had said 'one person is unable to attack another', but that would be silly.
It is a truism that the state fails at its protection every day, but perfection is an impossible test outside of math. The better test is whether a given type of weapon improves or harms individual security. Do the liberal gun laws in the US make people in general safer? Are armed people safer more or less likely to be victims of crime, or more or less likely to be harmed in a crime, than unarmed people? These are the kind of questions you should ask.
The fantasy of the armed patriots rising up against a facist new order is a silly argument to use unless you also advocate for personal ownership of RPGs, landmines, tanks, nukes, and other heavy weapons. Practically speaking, if such a totalitarian state ever takes over the US government, then there will likely by defections from the armed forces which will join the regular people in the fight against the government. That is usually what happens - see Libya and Syria recently, for example. You might point to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but to that I'd just say that a plurality voted for Hitler and Russians seem to return to the strong state model often, implying they like that sort of thing, or at least it's the best model given their human geography.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Non-lethal weapons are markedly less efficient for self-defense than lethal ones. Those that are actually somewhat efficient (like Tazers) are usually not nearly as non-lethal as their manufacturers would make you think.
Second of all why do we need to be making weapons at all? The government should have a monopoly on violence as it is the role of government to control weapons. Do we really want this?
Define "we". Someone has to make weapons for me to be able to buy one, monopoly or not. As it stands, those weapons are already made by private companies, and some of them can be pretty small workshops; what's the fundamental difference between a guy with a workshop, and a guy with a 3D printer?
Note that this does not preclude government regulation of weapon manufacture. A law could well be enacted that'd require the person producing the lower to register it. US does not have such a law, currently, for various reasons, but these are unrelated to this discussion.
Also, the government having a monopoly on violence does not preclude it from delegating it to its citizens under some circumstances where it's obviously a good idea, such as self-defense. And, of course, if you want your citizens to be able to efficiently defend themselves, you want them to be armed.
The post is almost an exact cut and paste of the first 4 paragraphs of the ExtremeTech article, with "we" (Extremetech) replaced by "Slashdot" and a phrase in the first sentence replaced by a link to the original article.
A subtle hyperlink does not equal an attribution - the /. post doesn't even mention ExtremeTech by name, just copies 2/3 of the article. Lame!
There are already polymer lower receivers out there. http://www.lw15.com/ is one. I prefer to machine my lower receivers out of an 80% completed block of aluminium. I'm not seeing why everyone is up in arms (punny) over this. :) It's legal to make your own firearm.
The better test is whether a given type of weapon improves or harms individual security.
I'm safer with a gun than without one.
Do the liberal gun laws in the US make people in general safer?
Those who care enough to invest in their safety are safer. Those who want to completely rely on others for such things would be fucked in a bad situation regardless of what country they're in.
The fantasy of the armed patriots rising up...
So let me ask you something. Do you think that they took a few tanks along to pick up every Jew? Do you think their war effort, let alone their Jew-collection effort, would have not been hampered in the least if the Warsaw ghetto and every other Jewish community had been armed as well as the average American suburb? Do you not think that small arms in the hands of civilians would be instrumental in aiding the armed forces defectors to whom you refer, many of whom would have access to heavier weapons as well? Do you not think that small arms would be instrumental in securing more heavy weapons?
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
This is why I like my fists and the Jo more than swords and knives. All I can do with knives is maim and injure; with fists I can inflict more controlled injuries. I can also skip some level of maiming and go straight to killing. The option for a less-lethal combat mode is better suited to my tastes, but I can still mistakenly kill you by sweeping your legs out from under you and sending your skull crashing down on a rock.
That said, I love swords. Not like I need 5000 of them, but I want to have, learn to use, and carry one. I don't know why, some kind of romantic authority I guess. It's the same for swords and jo as it is for guitar and piano: I love the guitar, it is a fun instrument to play, it's extremely dynamic (possibly the most dynamic instrument there is), portable, it's everything. I never get any good at it. Piano... I rarely practice, I suck at it, but whenever I spend a day or three practicing I get really good REALLY FUCKING FAST. I started practicing for 20 minutes a week and in 3 weeks I was playing half of Darkness and Starlight (yes that's an hour of practice time).
The first time somebody handed me a Jo, I immediately knew I could take down armies with just a simple length of wood... it just moves on its own, it's always where it needs to be, and it can reverse position instantaneously (it's in two positions at once); I can move and it can move and together that is all the world. The sword is so hard to control, it is a slow weapon... and it is a blunt object of wanton murder; while the Jo does not command authority, it allows true defense without inflicting severe injury. I can wave a sword at someone to scare them off or I can apply force and make them bleed and die; I can deflect weapons, unseat balance, inflict bruises and pain or inflict death with the Jo, and so are my options far greater than hesitance or murder.
Guns are slow up close because they can be taken directly while being drawn, whereas you do not want to grab the blade of a knife. Just out of reach, they are fatal. I have nothing against guns or swords; if you don't want to die, you shouldn't threaten harm on others who may carry no other means to defend themselves. These weapons do not suit my purposes; I need greater options. I do not make threats; I take action. I must meet threats with defense, and the only defense a gun offers me is shooting someone immediately to uncontrollable harm.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
+1 fucking brilliant
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's made of plastic, using the template for a metal part.
both materials have different strengths and weaknesses. I'd imagine that a part redesigned to take into account the material would work better.
The whole concept of "natural rights" is moronic. Dominance and control is natural; humans organize themselves hierarchically to that end, accepting dominance and control from something they can tolerate. That's why we have police who have power over us--they prevent us from murdering each other so we don't have to fear murder. Even with the ENTIRELY ARTIFICIAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, actual civilization resists it instead of supporting it: speaking your mind can get you socially rejected or killed in the night. At the very least you won't have any friends if you're a vocal Obama supporter in south Texas, which has large social consequences. That's why it's artificial: the entire species fights to keep the natural order of suppressing undesirable ideals, and punishes those who voice those ideals.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Unfortunately, it has become normal for Americans to cheer tyranny on.
Or the ability to print custom Disney products without paying a license fee. This a Millennium Falcon.
The fake 2nd amendment promoter, think the NRA, will go after this because it will be a way for them to make their toys while keeping the real weapons that might defend our liberty off limits.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Wow, that is an authentic experience - it even jams just like the real thing! ;)
just kidding. I like the AR-15. It is prone to jamming though. :-(
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It was finalised yesterday:
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000803148
I guess that means they'll have to get another printer in a few days.
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Non-lethal weapons are markedly less efficient for self-defense than lethal ones. Those that are actually somewhat efficient (like Tazers) are usually not nearly as non-lethal as their manufacturers would make you think.
Second of all why do we need to be making weapons at all? The government should have a monopoly on violence as it is the role of government to control weapons. Do we really want this?
Define "we". Someone has to make weapons for me to be able to buy one, monopoly or not. As it stands, those weapons are already made by private companies, and some of them can be pretty small workshops; what's the fundamental difference between a guy with a workshop, and a guy with a 3D printer?
Note that this does not preclude government regulation of weapon manufacture. A law could well be enacted that'd require the person producing the lower to register it. US does not have such a law, currently, for various reasons, but these are unrelated to this discussion.
Also, the government having a monopoly on violence does not preclude it from delegating it to its citizens under some circumstances where it's obviously a good idea, such as self-defense. And, of course, if you want your citizens to be able to efficiently defend themselves, you want them to be armed.
Defend themselves from what? Why can't those citizens become a cop or buy a defense oriented weapon? A machine gun or high powered rifle is not a defense weapon.
Defend themselves from what? Why can't those citizens become a cop or buy a defense oriented weapon? A machine gun or high powered rifle is not a defense weapon.
GP was talking about firearms in general, not about specific weapons. A handgun is a "defense oriented weapon" - the best one there is as of today. Rifles and shotguns are there for hunting, sport and defense against predators in wilderness areas. Machine guns are already heavily regulated (and manufacturing one is illegal outright), so they're not subject of this discussion.
Defend themselves from what? Why, any threats of death or bodily harm that come from other people, such as a drugged out junkie with a knife. Go to YouTube and search for "security camera self defense", you'll see plenty of examples.
Become a cop? Don't be ridiculous. I shouldn't have to join a full-time police force just to get the means to defend myself in face of physical aggression from another person.
Oh, and regardless of all that, it should be the proponents of gun control who should provide a rationale for their proposed bans on gun ownership, not the other way around. The right to own and carry weapons is a personal freedom, not really any distinct from freedom to smoke marijuana or have an abortion. If you want to restrict a personal freedom, you better damn have a very good reason to do so.
You're safer with a gun because so many others have guns. If there were fewer guns, there would be less reason to have one to protect yourself. I'll admit the situation in the US is hard, because there are so many guns out there, but I don't think the solution to guns is more guns.
Time does not start when the attack starts. People who rely on police for protection do not rely on them only when their house is invaded, they rely on them to keep the crime rate low and put criminals in jail, where they pose no threat.
Partisans fought the Nazis by and large with guns they got after the war started. And, with the possible exception of Yugoslavia, the most they did was hinder, not evict, the occupier. In WW2, like in any other war I can think of, partisans were able to mount a fight because they possessed two things: the will to fight and outside support.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Some poor bastard in a village blacksmith shop who can't read or write can produce AK47 clones day in, day out, that work!
Unless somebody "prints" a REAL rifle (one that can fire thousands of rounds of a useful cartridge (7.62x51) without a major failure I call this just more kids indulging in mental masturbation, trying to entertain themselves.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
That's all I really wanted to say. Thanks.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
Not sure if you're joking or British.
Here, FTFY. We continentals have no problems with handguns.
Ezekiel 23:20
There really isn't much between paintball/airsoft and lethal firearms. I wonder if there would be a market for people wanting something like that.
There is... air rifles.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
This just a proof of concept exercise....
Hay! I betcha $20 I can print a gun!
"Will it blend?"
Rick B.
7.62x54 is a serious round. Comparable to 30-06.
Draganov shoots 7.62x54.
The pistol would likely break your wrist.
Vasily Zaytsev killed 225 Germans with a M91/30.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Dude, have you SEEN what a Blendtech blender can do? Guns have nothing on that.
I hate printers.
It's the lower in America too. But we are still free people.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Technically, you cant make with intent to sell without a manufacturer license. However, you could make 'less than complete' kits with intent. Aside from a safety liability standpoint, you could sell something later that you never intended on selling.
Also have to watch local laws and regulations for additional restrictions on manufacture and sales as that will vary from area to area. ( even tho they are unconstitutional if you ask me )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A fairly smart guy once said "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have..." If the state provides you sufficient protection from harm, you're almost certainly in a padded cell, whether or not your delusions allow you to recognize it as such, and because of this your life is as tenuous as the whims of the person who holds the key.
Yeah, no thanks, I'll keep my liberty; damn the international norm.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Populists!!!
Seastead this.
Fantastic way to invest time and passion. The world, especially the US, needs MORE GUNS.
Idiots.
Department of the Army Technical Manual TM 31-210, Improvised Munitions Book.
The 12 Gauge made from scratch starts on page 100 under Section 3, Number 2.
It was designed to have a light personal defense round that is capable of piercing body armor, and that can be fired full-auto controllably.
Enter the gun designed for it, the FN P90. It's small (10" shorter than an M4 carbine, but the barrel is only 4" shorter), holds a lot of ammo (with 50 rounds it weighs five ounces less than an M4 with 30), and the whole magazine can be emptied at once on full-auto while staying in a 10" group at 50 meters. And you get a companion pistol that holds 20 rounds in a standard grip, and is still armor-piercing.
That's a pretty awesome deal for personal defense. Note personal defense, not assault. The average soldier whose regular job is not fighting (truck driving, tank driving, etc), or bodyguard, can have this with 200 rounds total and still be under ten pounds of gear.
But the transition to civilian life didn't work too well. We don't get full auto, and the armor-piercing rounds are illegal. It is a superb round, but the two main reasons for this its existence just don't apply in the civilian world.
The British Sten submachine gun was designed so that it could be made with the metalworking skills and tooling of a good bicycle shop in something like five hours. Small shops all over the country were making them for the war effort.
And that's with 1930s machining technology.
This is a -1 ? Seriously?
This is a nascent technology and already people are all like: "Oooh! lets make a machine gun!". Case-in-point: in the TFA they manufactured what is considered the "controlled component" of the weapon. Now this is typically above the head of the uninitiated but what it means is they manufactured the regulated part of the weapon, the lower receiver, all other parts are considered accessories.
I'm counting the days until 20/20 has an expose on "homemade weapons of mass destruction".
"With one of these inexpensive devices you can produce an automatic assault rifle just as easily as printing our your aunt Mary's cheesecake recipe"
Gun culture people... you are going to have to decide what you like more... your 3D printer or your Darth Vader rifle.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
A lot of people do worthless things just to see if they can do it, especially us geeks.
Cost of a 3D printer, $$$$
Cost of 3D material, probably $$$
Cost of a polymer AR-15, $50
Defend themselves from what? Why can't those citizens become a cop or buy a defense oriented weapon? A machine gun or high powered rifle is not a defense weapon.
GP was talking about firearms in general, not about specific weapons. A handgun is a "defense oriented weapon" - the best one there is as of today. Rifles and shotguns are there for hunting, sport and defense against predators in wilderness areas. Machine guns are already heavily regulated (and manufacturing one is illegal outright), so they're not subject of this discussion.
Defend themselves from what? Why, any threats of death or bodily harm that come from other people, such as a drugged out junkie with a knife. Go to YouTube and search for "security camera self defense", you'll see plenty of examples.
Become a cop? Don't be ridiculous. I shouldn't have to join a full-time police force just to get the means to defend myself in face of physical aggression from another person.
Oh, and regardless of all that, it should be the proponents of gun control who should provide a rationale for their proposed bans on gun ownership, not the other way around. The right to own and carry weapons is a personal freedom, not really any distinct from freedom to smoke marijuana or have an abortion. If you want to restrict a personal freedom, you better damn have a very good reason to do so.
I'm not for gun control. I'm for non-lethal weapons. I don't think a handgun is necessarily more effective than a non-lethal weapon. The adversary could wear a bullet proof vest, your gun could jam, they could be a better shot, or you could just not want to spend 20-30 years in jail for defending yourself.
I never said it that 7.62x54 doesn't pack a punch (it does especially with 203 grain soft points and the steel butt plate on those rifles) or that chopping one down was a good idea but it has been done in the past. There are also modern handguns that fire comparable rounds like the .500 Winchester magnum or the larger Thompson Contenders that shoot .30-06 or .308 but I don't think these are intended to be shot using one hand as I imagine the chopped Mosin-Nagents were either.
As far as impressive use of a Mosin-Nagent rifle you might want to check out the Finnish sniper Simo Hayha who has 505 confirmed sniper kills using a M28/30 (Finnish variant of the Mosin-Nagent). While Vasily Zaytsev achievements were notable and he became the poster child for Russian snipers Fyodor Okhlopkov, Ivan Sidorenko, and Lyudmila Pavlichenko (most successful female sniper ever) exceeded Zaytsev's count.
Time to offend someone
The joke was premised on "not distinguishing between different things is stupid". Your response is premised on the joke-teller not distinguishing. Nice work.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm not for gun control. I'm for non-lethal weapons. I don't think a handgun is necessarily more effective than a non-lethal weapon.
In virtually all circumstances, it's either more effective, or at least just as ineffective.
In fact, can you give an example of a non-lethal weapon that is effective?
The adversary could wear a bullet proof vest
There's no such thing as a "bullet proof" vest. They're properly called bullet-resistant or ballistic vests these days for a reason. You can certainly get a vest that would stop most pistol bullets even at close range, but not all of them - e.g. something like TT 7.62x25 easily defeats class I and II vests.
Furthermore, even if the vest stops the bullet, the force of impact is still hard enough to break bones, which would knock the breath out of any but the most determined attackers, given you the opportunity to flee (remember, the point of using a handgun in self-defense is to incapacitate or buy yourself time, not to kill - the latter is merely a side effect, not a goal).
Finally, in practice, vests are expensive and bulky, so your chances of running into a criminal that actually wears one are very, very slim. In most real-world scenarios where the use of lethal force is necessary to defend yourself, a handgun will work just fine.
your gun could jam
Any mechanical or electronic device could jam or otherwise malfunction - so this applies to non-lethal weapons as well. However, guns have been perfected over the course of ages to the point where, today, they are extremely reliable. For handguns, in particular, there's always an option of carrying a revolver, which is nearly impossible to malfunction in a way that would render it inoperable - even if you get a failure to fire, you can just pull the trigger to rotate the drum and fire the next round, and there are no failures to feed or to eject because there's nothing to feed or to eject. The only thing that can fail is the trigger/rotation mechanism, which is very, very rare.
they could be a better shot
Maybe, but your chances are higher gun vs gun than they are with any sort of melee weapon vs a similar weapon, or bare hands vs pretty much anything. The nice thing about handguns is that they're pretty easy to learn to use efficiently for defensive purposes (which is drawing and unloading a magazine at the center of mass of your target at distances under 15 yards, basically), and they don't require being in good physical shape or regular exercise, so pretty much anyone can do it.
Also, even if you use a non-lethal weapon, and even with stringent gun control, your assailant is still not unlikely to be carrying a gun - he's a criminal, so what does he care about liability (see UK for example: despite their crackdown on firearms, their use in crimes has been on the rise in recent years)? So you're just as likely to end up in a situation of facing a gun on the other side with your non-lethal weapon. Good luck with that.
or you could just not want to spend 20-30 years in jail for defending yourself.
In any country with sane laws, this should not be a concern.
Heck, in the state in which I currently reside, not only lethal self-defense is a right protected by law, but you're even guaranteed that the state will reimburse your legal expenses if you're sued over killing or harming someone, and are found not guilty by virtue of it being legitimate self-defense.
the point of using a handgun in self-defense is to incapacitate or buy yourself time, not to kill - the latter is merely a side effect, not a goal).
If you're not prepared to kill in my opinion you shouldn't be carrying a gun. There is a time to kill in self defense but lets not pretend like a gun isn't designed to kill.
You misunderstood the point. A gun is by definition lethal, and effective self-defense techniques with a handgun are all highly lethal (center of mass is where most vital organs are). Nevertheless, the point of self-defense is not to kill a person attacking you. It's to quickly and efficiently make them a non-threat to you. This coincidentally carries a high risk of death to the attacker, but that's not the purpose of drawing the gun.
Hence why, if the first shot incapacitates the attacker but he's still alive, shooting him again at that point (provided that you have time to clearly observe his state and conclude that he is not a threat anymore) is not legal. Similarly, if you draw a gun, and the guy just turns around and runs away, you can't shoot him - he's not threatening you anymore. On the other hand, of course, the idea of shooting at limbs and other non-vital parts initially is silly - you are more likely to miss, and if you hit, it is less likely to be an effective stopper.
You misunderstood the point. A gun is by definition lethal, and effective self-defense techniques with a handgun are all highly lethal (center of mass is where most vital organs are). Nevertheless, the point of self-defense is not to kill a person attacking you. It's to quickly and efficiently make them a non-threat to you. This coincidentally carries a high risk of death to the attacker, but that's not the purpose of drawing the gun.
Hence why, if the first shot incapacitates the attacker but he's still alive, shooting him again at that point (provided that you have time to clearly observe his state and conclude that he is not a threat anymore) is not legal. Similarly, if you draw a gun, and the guy just turns around and runs away, you can't shoot him - he's not threatening you anymore. On the other hand, of course, the idea of shooting at limbs and other non-vital parts initially is silly - you are more likely to miss, and if you hit, it is less likely to be an effective stopper.
The point is if you don't kill the guy you don't have to fight it in court. Non-lethal weapons can stop a person without killing them.
The point is if you don't kill the guy you don't have to fight it in court
That's not even remotely close to the truth. If you don't kill the guy but you still hurt him, it is assault and battery, which is definitely a crime - so you will still need to argue it in the court, unless it's clear-cut that it was self-defense.
In fact, ironically, you're more likely to sued if your attacker survives in that case, because even if the state does not bring a criminal lawsuit against you, he can bring a civil lawsuit for damages.
Non-lethal weapons can stop a person without killing them.
I have repeatedly ask you to list those hypothetical non-lethal weapons that are efficient at stopping people without killing them, but so far you haven't named one.