Slashdot Mirror
3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested a magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip. That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called 'high capacity magazines' capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the wake of recent shootings would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions. Defense Distributed says it hopes to preempt any high capacity magazine ban by showing how impossible it has become to prevent the creation of a simple spring-loaded box in the age of cheap 3D printing. It's posted the 3D-printable magazine blueprints on its website, Defcad.org, and gun enthusiasts have already downloaded files related to the ammo holders more than 2,200 times." Update: 01/15 23:15 GMT by T : Mea culpa; please blame my flu for mistakenly letting through that headline with "clip" where it should say "magazine." I know the difference — and I don't own any clips.
Could people stop using that word? It's almost as bad as technobable on the idiot box.
You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?
A good guy with a gun. Anything else is handwaving bullshit.
Where's the school shooting going to happen? At the school with the "Gun Free Zone" sign, or at the school with the "Protected by Armed Guards" sign?
For one thing, these are not called "clips", they are magazines. And magazines hold rounds, not "bullets", which are part of a round. Seeing these terms used clues the reader in that the author knows little to nothing about firearms.
In a larger sense, I don't think we need printer control in response to this, because (a) not a single one of the new regulations being proposed would have stopped any of these mass shootings, and (b) because I can't see these plastic magazines working exceptionally well.
How does this keep schools safer?
So instead of convincing them not to ban large magazines, they'll just ban guns that don't have fixed magazines.
Is that really what they wanted?
Unfortunately, TV and film have filled us with bad terminology. This is about a magazine. A clip is a completely different thing.
Magazines hold multiple rounds. They're typically enclosed for protection from dust and dirt, and are inserted into a firearm through a receiving slot. Magazines are used in semi-automatic pistols like your average Glock, Sig Sauer, Walther, etc. They're also used in rifles like the M-16 or AR-15.
Clips hold two rounds together in a belt fed weapon, like the M-60. They're typically fed from an ammunition box or other container. The clips are expelled after running through the weapon. The expulsion is similar to the way the brass casings are expelled. It's basically a small curved springy piece of metal holding two rounds together.
The names are not interchangeable. There's no such thing as a 30 round clip. It's a 30 round magazine.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
We do it intentionally because it makes you guys so mad. It's hilarious. "It's not a CLIP!!! AAAAAAA"
Good point. That is to say, you and every other Slashdork is all gung-ho about "technology misuse" when it comes to, say, pirated software or movie or music distribution or breaking DRM, but when it comes to printing a sodding plastic box, we get "omfg, technology misuse" and Slashdot turns into a cesspool of whiny moralising dweebs.
That our esteemed legislators say to themselves
"Well, that's that, then! I guess it's pointless to ban high-capacity magazines."
or
"This is insidious! Alongside a high-capacity magazine ban, we should also ban 3D printing! Clearly it's a technology that will only be used by TERRORISTS!"
I think something like the latter is more likely, and I'm not even one of /.'s famed government-hating libertarian fundamentalists!
They are much more likely to inspire legislation banning 3D printing.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You store ammo in a magazine. Ships have magazines, semi-automatic pistols have magazines, and even your bolt-action hunting rifles have magazines.
Are you specifically talking about detachable magazines for semi-automatic rifles? Why didn't you say so? I hate it when people use generic terms when they mean something specific.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, especially in newspapers, movies, and on television. Because of this usage, the Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm".
Language changes. Get over it. Moreover, even while you are technically correct, this distinction has no substantive impact on the underlying discussion.
Also: your definition of clip is wrong. Both stripper and en block clips can hold more than two rounds, and the weapon involved need not be belt fed.
And yesterday, the news reported a woman who, along with her two children, was hiding in the attic because a guy broke in with a crowbar. When he began to enter the attic, she shot him. It's very likely that if she had any weapon other than a gun, she would not have been able to stop him.
Of course, a gun being used properly isn't sensationalist for you.
Source: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
I can reload a new, full pistol mag in under 1.5 seconds consistently. So, what's the point of that law? And what's to stop a crazy person from walking into a school with a machete, taser, and body armor? Good luck stopping that combo without a weapon. And what's going to stop someone from carrying bleach with chlorine into a crowded place and mixing it, making mustard gas (if I remember correctly). That's like a gun x10.
You either toddler-proof the entire world or you realize you're not going to stop a crazy person from doing stupid shit. There is no solution to mass shooting problems unless you go get some oracles and put them in a pool and form a precrime division...and even that didn't work out, lol.
I'm from Wisconsin where we FINALLY become the 49th state to have a conceiled weapons permit available about a year ago. Now every store that's run by a dumbass has a sign that says "Only criminals are allowed to carry weapons in this store." It actually says "no guns or weapons allowed" but since criminals won't read or respect that, I translated it.
For the record, I don't own a gun. I only carry LTL weapons because they work better at disabling a target and the court case would go a lot better if someone who tries to rob me isn't dead. Also it's easier to get financial compensation from them, lol.
If they think 20 bullets per mag is going to stop someone from going on a shooting spree or that 20 less dead people is acceptable, they're dreaming. I mean I know not one single politician actually believe any of this gun law BS, it's all just for show, but still.
Yet there are numerous restrictions and bans on them. Or using alcohol. Is there any law which is going to stop a person who is bound and determined to drink and drive?
The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction.
You're talking about laws that reduce poor judgment or carelessness. They enforce proper action in good-hearted people. But murder is different. It requires evil intent. There are already laws against murder. Once someone decides that (mass)murder is their goal, there aren't a whole lot of laws that will stop them. Maybe serve as a bar by which to judge and punish the murderer, yes, but precious few laws create an environment which will stop them.
They *are* death panels. Just recognize that private insurance companies have them too, and they have shareholders to satisfy...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Would have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora?
The simple fact is politicians are going for low hanging fruit because they do not want to admit we live in a world with dysfunctional people and the money that could be spent to treat them does not buy sufficient votes for those in power.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Oh yeah,
Well another woman was killed by her own AR-15 assault rifle, and then had her gun used to murder 20 children.
28 people were killed by guns yesterday, and most of them probably didn't deserve to die.
28 more will die tomorrow. And the next day. Just like every day for the past decade.
Anecdotes prove nothing. Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
Waaay back when, I hit the Bureau of Crime Statistics, the Dept of Justice, and the FBI websites to see all the data relating to violent crimes, gun crimes, and so on.
According to our own records, automatic or high-capacity weapons are used so infrequently to perpetrate crimes that they don't even have their own separate breakdown - they're sloshed into the 'other' bucket with weapons like 'talking billy bass animated fish sculpture'. The most popular weapon for crime appears to be cheap semiautomatic pistols. The cheaper the better.
If your goal is to reduce gun crime, it seems like focusing on automatic rifles and other scary-sounding guns is dumb. Even if they had the potential for greater harm, the smaller guns have actually realized their potential. Of course, if the goal is not just myopically focused on guns, and instead it's meant to reduce suffering, to save lives, and so on - why does no one look at the statistics that say there's more than twice the number of suicides by gun in a year than murders in the US? If we're going to spend money, why not focus on the sectors with the biggest benefits?
(as an amusing aside, check out the violent crime breakdowns by race. What if it was politically correct acknowledge the groups that are outliers by several orders of magnitude, and try to focus on fixing the cultural problems that cause it?).
Isn't it time we banned these 3d assault printers?
I'm all about the retractable batons and unfortunately women aren't big on those because you REALLY need some muscle behind those to do anything. But ranged tasers are illegal for civilians, as are the most effective less than lethal weaponry...but we'll let them have guns! .39g 4.5mm brass BBs. If someone walks in with anything other than a gun, that'll ruin their fucking day, lol. It's slightly louder than some real pistols, the BBs go about an inch into you, its fire speed is ridiculous, and you'll be bleeding badly after getting hit with that. They haven't been known to kill someone though. I got the gun used for $35 too. Now that's safe self defense. Of course high powered BB gun vs actual pistol, not such a great idea without lots of cover or an escape plan + the jump on them so you better be a quick draw. This is why people need ranged tasers.
At my shop I have a 21 round 600FPS gas-powered, full metal BB gun shooting
The assault weapons ban is what they'll do if just a symbolic victory is good enough - they're practically banned already. The magazine limit thing? That will annoy gun owners but won't make much of a difference.
Now Swiss-style gun controls (even without the universal military training) would be an intelligent and effective response. Universal background checks, government gun registry, safe storage requirements. Let's see how much the NRA admires Switzerland then.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's not legal to ferment grain at home. Only beer and wine.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Clips hold two rounds together in a belt fed weapon, like the M-60. They're typically fed from an ammunition box or other container. The clips are expelled after running through the weapon. The expulsion is similar to the way the brass casings are expelled. It's basically a small curved springy piece of metal holding two rounds together.
No, there are clips that hold far more than two rounds. Like the 8-round clip used in the M1 rifle. There are also clips that can be arbitrarily large, and hold as many rounds as you can fit, lift, and fit between the gun and an obstacle like the ground. They work like a belt, except they are stiff.
If anything, it makes more sense to 3D print a clip than a magazine.
A typical magazine consists of multiple parts, including spring loading, which cannot be printed. So you need to go on the market for parts and assemble them anyhow. So it's not really doing much more than someone bending sheet metal into a form to create a magazine casing. You still need the plate and spring mechanism.
A clip, on the other hand, can be fully created by a 3D printer, without the need for extras.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for our society's continued freedom from government tyranny. That's what the second amendment is about. Not self defense, not hunting, not skeet shooting. Protection from tyranny. It's a recognized right for the people to possess the means to revolt should they choose.
Well, Columbine had armed guards, but the school shooters still used the tools the NRA provided to them to effectively kill many children.
Perhaps taking the gun from the bad guys - Alex Jones, and the gun stroking retards who support the NRA would be a more effective tactic.
Before looking at the facts of the case, first consider the line of reasoning used in the argument. Critics use a specific example (the Columbine tragedy) to make a general conclusion (armed school guards don't help). It's called inductive reasoning, and it is not a valid line of reasoning, because generalizations based on specific examples are easily disproved. For example, inductive reasoning would argue that because life-long smoker George Burns died of a heart attack at the age of 100 (the specific example), smoking is not hazardous to your health (the general conclusion).
In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.
The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.
After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
And the Columbine shooter had a High Point carbine with 10 round magazines. This isn't about "safety for the children" it is about disarming American citizens.
Don't fall for what the TV tells you.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I've got a Garand, you insensitive clod!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
With a question like this, anecdotes are pretty much worthless, just a way of distracting people from thinking rationally about the real issues of risk and benefit. For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake. There are examples of people who survived an auto accident only because they were thrown from the car, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't fasten your seat belt--we know that because we have actual statistics that show that [I]on the average[/I], seat belts save lives.
So if you want to make a real case, forget the anecdotes and cite some real numbers.
And yet, the risk of actually being killed by a firearm in Norway is significantly smaller than in the US.
Even in the light of the Utöya massacre, you'll have to look hard to find a single Norwegian that actually want more relaxed gun laws.
Actually, this was close to the very first thing I thought as I read this... Great, another brilliant and innovative piece of technology that is going to get banned because the government doesn't like what it might be able to do.
Putting the gun debate aside for a moment...
I'm fascinated by what will happen when 3D printing manages to create its first illegal object. I don't think they've printed anything illegal yet, have they?
What will happen when they do? Authorities will have to crack down on 3D printing patterns, which will be impossible. Or perhaps the law (all laws?) will be rewritten so that possession of the object is illegal but possession of the digital design is permitted...which will make monitoring of 3D printer usage mandatory. This upcoming clash between object legality and post-scarcity technology will make the copyright wars look like a kindergarten brawl.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Do you really - I mean, really - think that you are at the risk of experiencing tyranny from your duly elected government in the US? Give your head a shake.
With what? A whistle?
How do we know that gun enthusiasts downloaded the plans 2,200 times? Did they self-identify before downloading the files? Did the company hosting the files check to see that the downloads were even unique? How do they know there weren't people that were just interested in seeing what the plans looked like, and what their printer could do?
I've downloaded files before just because they were available, and never used them - and I suspect I'm not the only person who has.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for our society's continued freedom from government tyranny. That's what the second amendment is about. Not self defense, not hunting, not skeet shooting. Protection from tyranny. It's a recognized right for the people to possess the means to revolt should they choose.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when people had muskets in order to enable a well-regulated militia to defend themselves from colonial powers and attacks by native Americans, not the federal government. The militia kept their muskets locked up in an armory away from home until they were needed. We still have that, it's called the National Guard. Go sign up if you want to, but you don't get to bring your service rifle home with you.
I always like hearing this argument (about Military might) ... if anything were to happen on a big enough scale, some of those people will be ex-military and some of those military will question the shooting of "fellow Americans." Even though you are taught to believe that our troops are programmed robots who will shot whatever they are told, it's simply not true. Granted, it would be a matter of scale issue. They will not think twice about a small uprising in a compound in Texas, but if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
You were modded funny, but I bet this is what is going to actually happen. Modern day tyrants are afraid of the First Amendment way more than they are afraid of the Second.
Three cities with the toughest gun laws in the country, and among the highest rates of gun violence. Analyze that.
Places where reasonable "shall-issue" concealed carry licenses are available have seen large decreases in gun violence. Analyze that too.
But that doesn't fit the narrative.
And to "fix" that, you want to take away the rights of every law-abiding citizen in America to defend themselves.
Looking from outside in my opinion problem isn't with gun control. Problem is that civil war hasn't ended. South still things they can legimitely take back what they have lost during that war. They think 2nd admentment legally allows them to do that when they finally goes in official minority (now they have tweaked House of Represatives, but they will ran out of these tricks too). Therefore they are very touchy. No one wants to ban all arms. But there's arms who are really meant for utter destruction than real protection of your property or your pulse. But most people who oppose this are mostly freakishly obsessed with assault guns. If they could buy and shoot a tank - they would do it.
Just my two cents,
Peter.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
There is no tyranny. Pretty easy.
I've looked at the statistics, unfortunately most of the studies on defensive gun use were done back in the 1990's and many are 20 years old at this point. The National Crime Victimization Survey circa 1993 was the lowest of the lot citing an estimated 108,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year. The Kleck studies put that number higher at between 650k - and 2.5M per year. The Kleck piece is Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevelance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1
If you don't like the Kleck study(s) for whatever reason he the National Insitute of Justice that came up with 1.5M defensive uses of firearms per year: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997).
The flip side of those studies being that old now is there are all of critical reviews of their data and methodology at this point.
Even if we take the lowest number of defensive gun uses at an average of 108,000 per years, the number of times a firearm was used to stop a crime was still over 3 times the total number of gun deaths. And depending on the defition of defensive gun use, oftentimes "using a firearm" means drawing and presenting the gun is enough to stop the crime or potential crime without a shot being fired.
An incident that happened to me a couple years ago. It was a hot muggy July day and I was sitting in city traffic. I had the windows rolled down as my car was old and starting to overheat so I wasn't running A/C. Some guy opened my car door, got in, and started to tell me where to drive until he looked over and saw the barrel of the revolver I had on me at the time. His eyes got large and he promptly got out of my car and walked off. To this day I have no idea why he got in my car. Did he mean me harm? I don't know. All I know is that I didn't know him, he wasn't supposed to be there, and my revolver ended the situation and no shots were fired.
Now if you want to look at statistics consider this: violent crime in the US has dropped over 50% of it's 1992 levels. The reasons are likely many, many factors. I'm sure economy, more forrms of electronic entertainment, more people allowed to carry concealed all factor into that. The violent crime rate last year for England and Wales was 4x that of the US. In fact it was almost TWICE the the 1992 US rate of violent crime.
If you break down the homicide rates in the US, as the Justice Statistics has, with the latest report I found being from 2008, amoung whites, the murder rate is a little higher at around 1.6/100k, but still within the same rates as most of Western Europe. But amoung the black population it was 8.6/100k and 8.2/100k in the hispanic population increasing the overall homicide rate in the US to around 4 - 5/100k. Sucide rates didn't look much different between the US and Europe. Yes more people used guns to commit sucicide, but it suggests that if guns were not used they would have found another way.
Personally the 28 guns deaths vs the 100 or more crimes that were prevented by guns per day is a price that I can live with.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
There's more that one way to approach a question. Different states have very different gun laws. So one could compare rates of victimization for various types of crimes (with appropriate statistical adjustment for demographic factors). One could look at rates of accidental gun injuries and "friendly fire" shootings. There have been efforts to research these issues using the same sort of sophisticated epidemiology that has been developed to assess disease risk and drug safety. Unfortunately such research has been largely blocked by political pressure from the gun lobby. Apparently, they feel that their interests are best served if we keep arguing about stupid anecdotes instead of real science.
See, that's where you're wrong. It's not what the government wants, it's what the people want. We want less guns on the streets. We want an absolute end to assault rifles. We are not afraid of our government. Just because you're paranoid and delusional does not mean the rest of us have to be armed to the teeth.
Get help. This is no way to live your life.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Every time I hear someone break out into song about how the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets being the norm and that they (the founders) would not have meant for it to cover the weaponry of today I get more confused. I've never really been able to put my finger on exactly why I get confused, but it's always just seemed so ridiculous to me that someone would think that the amendments are not designed to keep pace with the world and its advances. Let me just ask this question - maybe it will help me to understand where certain people, those who believe as you do, are coming from.
It seems that the logical extension of your stance on the 2nd amendment would beg the following questions. Since we didn't have the internet back then does that mean that the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to speech on the internet? I mean, come now, no way they saw that coming and frankly they could have never expected radical, potentially dangerous ideas to be able to spread so quickly. For that matter, since we didn't have automobiles does that mean that the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to your new SUV or, if you're lucky enough to have one, your own airplane? I mean, how could they gave intended to cover those things when they didn't even exist?
As a rule we take for granted and get all "up in arms" when the man infringes on one of the other rights protected (not granted - protected) by the constitution. We PAINSTAKINGLY point out how everything new is actually old (there is nothing new under the sun) and that the constitutionally protected rights should extend to this or that situation. But guns get different treatment and the 2nd amendment is treated differently. Why? And does it actually make sense to treat it differently or is it a purely emotional subject?
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Where can my sexy woman get herself one of these fancy "ammo clip skirts." It would go nicely with her "grenade launcher bra" and her "rocket launcher stockings."
Who says sex and violence are separable?
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Tyranny is the crap going on in Syria right now, where the government is indiscriminately blasting civilian neighborhoods in retaliation for assisting rebels. 150 civilians are dying daily there because of attacks from government forces.
There is a lot of bad stuff going on in the world right now, including here in the US, but very little falls under the formal realm of tyranny. When the Army sets fire to your home because your neighbor is printing magazine clips from a 3D printer, you have the right to start calling it tyranny.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
The militia kept their muskets locked up in an armory away from home until they were needed. We still have that, it's called the National Guard. Go sign up if you want to, but you don't get to bring your service rifle home with you.
You're wrong on several points there. Historically it was common for local militia members to be expected to furnish their own weapon.
And the current militia is:
10 USC 311 - Militia: composition and classes
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
AND NOW WE DANCE.
Same rationale as now: Criminals used them in a few high-profile cases, so the statist authoritarians got the traction to restrict them for everybody.
The sad thing is that it takes dozens of children being murdered before politicians can discuss it.
The primary purpose of protecting the right to own firearms is to allow the civilian populace of the United States to maintain the necessary power to resist and possibly violently overthrow an oppressive, out-of-control government.
Hunting and target shooting are just side benefits.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides
If you have an actual civil war, the choice of weapons is irrelevant, as both sides will get hold of more or less the same amount of whatever they can, including helicopter gunships, heavy machine guns, tanks, cruise missiles and H-bombs (even assuming that the military split evenly into pro- and anti-government, and don't just keep all the good stuff for the government side, which is unlikely).
Whether or not you have a legally owned rifle or handgun at home will be irrelevant.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I tried to read as many posts as I could in this thread, however, has anyone else thought about the ramifications from this? i mean, i've thought about this from the time i heard of 3d printer models being available for guns and gun parts (mags). i am a gun enthusiast (nut) and i avidly believe in the 2nd Amendment. the ramifications are enormous to this... guns available on ebay without serial numbers, parts readily available to all. felons buying 3d printers, downloading the torrent, building their own arsenal. while i am up for a little "old west" style of living, be it anarchy, chaos, etc. there are various philosophical debates to be had concerning this. there will be an uproar from the anti-gun crowd when this info is more wide-spread and main streamed. even more so when the first armed robber/murder is committed with an unlicensed, unregistered, no serial number AR-15 that was obviously produced on a 3D printer with no recourse as to who provided the weapon. this takes the term "hacking" to entirely new level. we've went from our coding history to the destruction of networks in nuclear facilities to providing arms to everyone with access to a decent 3d printer. lots to consider. /CF