Slashdot Mirror


Defcad.com Wants To Be the Google of 3D-Printable Guns

Sparrowvsrevolution writes that at this year's SXSW, Defense Distributed founder Code Wilson has announced a for-profit spinoff of his gun-printing project, from which people will be able to search for and download gun-related CAD files. "Though the search engine will index all types of files, Wilson says he hopes the group's reputation for hosting politically incendiary content will mean users trust that it won't censor search results. 'When we say you should have access to these files, people believe we mean that,' says Wilson. 'No takedowns. No removals. We'd fight everything to the full extent of the law.' Along with the SXSW announcement, Wilson also released a provocative video where he lays out the plan for Defcad.com and criticizes gun control advocates and 'collusive' 3D printing companies like Makerbot."

225 comments

  1. My first thought by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

    1. Re:My first thought by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I think that DefCAD ought to host this whole episode, too.

      As long as they also host the MythBusters cautionary about earth bamboo...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:My first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could very well be wrong but I'm pretty sure his name is pronounced "Co-Dee". It's just a stupid way of spelling a normal name.

    3. Re:My first thought by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Informative

      is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

      Wishful thinking on behalf of the submitter - TFA has his name spelled correctly.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:My first thought by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

      Maybe they meant Cody?

    5. Re:My first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I was going to name my kid Shithead (pronounces SHI-teed) but the wife objected

    6. Re:My first thought by saider · · Score: 1

      SNL:
      Asswipe: "az-WEE-peh"

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    7. Re:My first thought by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      is who would name their kid "Code". My second thought is "duh, I'm on Slashdot".

      Rock star Frank Zappa named his daughter Moon Zappa.

      Falcon

    8. Re:My first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but he would have been Shithead Junior and your wife figured one Shithead in the family is enough.

    9. Re:My first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife's son's given name is Xiting. It's only a joke if you are bilingual in both Mandarin and English. ;-)

    10. Re:My first thought by PlastikMissle · · Score: 1

      Moon Unit Zappa.

    11. Re:My first thought by ProfPanglos · · Score: 1

      Moon Unit Zappa.

      ... and named his son Dweezil, after his mother's toenail I think. Dweezil Zappa's a freakin' incredible guitarist.

    12. Re:My first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favourite is Brad and Angie's nipper Shiloh. Try swapping the beginnings of the forename and surname of "Shiloh Pitt" around?

  2. No takedowns. No removals. by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm .. is history about to repeat itself? I seem to remember there used to be a bunch of mp3 hosting sites that aren't here now. I'm guessing that this guy will be headed to oblivion once people start up-loading 3d scans of copywrited material - whether it is from a gun manufacturer or from Disney.

    Good luck finding somewhere safe to host the servers.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 2

      Copies of Kalashnikov's work are made pretty much every place on the globe already.

    2. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      The question is whether he meant exactly what he said, or if he failed to think it all the way through. Did he mean that any 3D printing file that anyone uploads to their site, even if the copyright on the file belongs to someone else would remain on their site until a court orders them to take it down? Which is the literal interpretation of the words he said. Or did he mean that as long as the file uploaded to their site is not owned by someone who requests they take it down they will leave it up, no matter how offensive some people might find it? If he means the latter, and has deep enough pockets, he may well be able to keep the doors open and the servers online. He did leave himself an out by saying they would fight to keep things up "to the full extent of the law." That qualifier suggests that his meaning was closer to the latter than to the former.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I read this as more like "we'll only take down stuff when compelled to by a court". The auto-removal stuff that some hosts will do won't be honored. Kind of like nearlyfreespeech.com - they will not take down stuff just because it's controversial, but they do respect the law.
      That's just the way I interpret it, could well be wrong.

    4. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Except for logos, there's not a lot of gun IP left. A small amount of shifting, and the copyright restraints dissolve. There are more recent patents for semi-automatics, but the technology's been around for generations, so patents have mostly expired.

      Death, however, has been around forever although I think Bezos will try to patent something there, one day soon.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      to the full extent of the law.

      I took that to mean that he would fight. Not that he would necessarily be innocent or win. For all I know he may be taking an extreme stance on " [stuff] needs to be free"

      However also from TFA this new site is meant as a revenue generating source - most likely for himself ("a guys gotta eat") so I am more inclined to believe that he is on more of an egotistical/screw you stance than flowers and cute ponies [wielding AK-47's].

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Except for logos, there's not a lot of gun IP left.

      I don't think its the lack of gun IP that will do him in, rather the opportunity by other parties (such as Disney for want of a better example) to take him down, which *co-incidently* takes down the gun stuff.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      If he hosts copyrighted material and attracts it for dissemination, then yes, he invites criminal and civil litigation.

      Hosting doesn't necessarily cause a problem. Invitation to piracy steps over several lines depending on the jurisdiction.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then they will go to bittorrent or whatever the next big thing is. While old fogies will just get the stuff off usenet.

    9. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I interpreted his meaning as the latter: assuming there's no copyright violation, DefCad would not take down CAD designs based on how controversial those designs might be. I could be wrong, of course.

      There's considerable precedent for controversial content being legally protected in the US, even if the content describes something that is illegal: several publishers have printed books (which are available on places like Amazon and other bookstores) that describe how to convert commonly-available semi-auto AK-47 clones into their full-auto brethren. Such a conversion is illegal and will land someone in Club Fed for a while, but writing about the conversion is not. Similarly, there are many magazines and publications about the cultivation and use of marijuana even though the possession of marijuana violates federal law.

    10. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I agree that it reads like he would fight every attempt to take anything down from the site, but it could mean a much more pragmatic approach. It could even mean that they would take an approach that would make them only barely distinguishable from the sites he was criticizing as too PC. My hope that his meaning is a somewhat combative, pragmatic approach: if they know the law is against them hosting the file, they will take it down; if they believe that the law allows them to host the file, they will fight to the bitter end, stuff that is in the grey area they will fight until the courts make it clear (taking one of two attitudes "we think this should be legal, but the law is not clear," and "we think the law is unclear here and the courts need to clarify the meaning of the law, we will abide by the court's decision.")

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by houghi · · Score: 1

      What is weird and really, really fucked up is that I would not be scared of the guys with the guns, but of the guy with the cute cartoon mouse.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      However also from TFA this new site is meant as a revenue generating source - most likely for himself ("a guys gotta eat") so I am more inclined to believe that he is on more of an egotistical/screw you stance than flowers and cute ponies [wielding AK-47's].

      Which gets interesting because DMCA takedowns have already occurred.

      Since he's selling affiliate links to people who can make it for you or other things, things would get murky very fast.

      Forget guns - they'll quickly become just a tiny part of the site - it's the other stuff that people upload that'll become popular and mainstream. For every person who'll want to download some AK-47 part, there'll be dozens of others who want the plans to make some Bieber bobble head or something.

    13. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Zimluura · · Score: 1

      "useful articles" don't get any copyright protection.

      things like this can get patents, but patents don't last as long. the venerable ar-15 has no unexpired patents. that's why there are so many different ar15 designs out there. ar15 manufacturers (like stag, adams arms, zombie defense, dpms, yhm) aren't licensing the design from eugene stoner, armalite, or colt.

      patents related mechanical engineering are also much less consolidated than the copyrights of major record labels and movie studios. so there is less of a coordinated effort (and less money to spend) in pursuit of legal action in the event of patent violation.

    14. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      3D handheld scanners are not cheap. Yet anyways. But yes, I can imagine a torrent of 3Dz scanz (gotta use 1337 speak) hitting the net. And you guys thought the RIAA and MPAA were pissed...

      Let me foretell what will happen here. And I'm dead serious! Private ownership of 3D printers will be *illegal*. A law will pass with full bipartisan support in congress. For the companies that need them, the operator will be required to be government certified and keep a roster log of all objects created and the materials used to create them.

      Mark. My. Words!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Well, they're out of patent protection, aren't they? So it's not even black-market.

    16. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are still tons of mp3 hosting sites, it's just that search engines like Google aren't indexing them. Only Google is allowed to use copyrighted music to make money with YouTube.

    17. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by lart2150 · · Score: 1

      I got it a gun with Micky Mouse(r) ears for iron sights!

    18. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because you're caught up in the whole Slashdot ethos and have a poor grip of reality.

    19. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Got to have something to use for target practice.

    20. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I got it a gun with Micky Mouse(r) ears for iron sights!

      That... that actually sounds kinda awesome...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ...

      Yes, they are, they cost about $100 and walmart sells them.

      You may have heard of them, they are called 'Kinect' and with oversampling, the resolution is rather impressive.

      Google for Kinect Fusion or here is one of the related links: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/6/4071162/kinect-fusion-3d-object-scanning-coming-in-future-kinect-for-windows

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that most of the things they're producing on the site so-far are in that class... I can't see many problems.

      Now...if only someone could come up with decent plans for a Neil Submachine Gun...the thing sounds like FUN.

    23. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That brings up some interesting questions.
      Would files for 3D printing be considered creative expression that falls under copyright, like software?
      Would patents related to the object apply to the 3D printer files? Or only to the printed object?
      Would the printed 3D object be covered under copyright?
      You will probably get different answers for different types of final products, and also varying answers from various lawyers and judges.

    24. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "Well, they're out of patent protection, aren't they?"

      That's an interesting question. Rifles of the same basic design are/were manufactured all over the Soviet Bloc and even in Egypt and China. There were so many manufacturers, I sort of assumed the design was an open standard. I did some searching however, and apparently that's not the case:

      http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2009/10/russia-to-defend-ak-47-assault-rifle-copyright

      Arsenal Inc. of Nevada claims to be the "exclusive licensed US manufacturer".

    25. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well assuming the patent was issued in '47 and patents last 20 years, the AK-47 should have become public domain in 1967

    26. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That brings up some interesting questions.

      Would files for 3D printing be considered creative expression that falls under copyright, like software?

      yes, just like lithograph plates

      Would patents related to the object apply to the 3D printer files? Or only to the printed object?

      only the printed object. the file is basically the same as a blueprint and those are made public as part of getting a patent.

      Would the printed 3D object be covered under copyright?

      yes, just like lithograph prints.

    27. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Unless there's a Mickey Mouse on it. Then it lasts forever.

    28. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Unlike the music/movie industry, the firearm industry has a history of openness, unlike the industry of music and video production. Every gun out there is a slight derivative, in one way or another, of one or more firearms. This has been done for hundreds of years. Any firearm CAD file is, if not directly released by the manufacturer, reverse engineered and not copied. For that matter, that's true of any physical CAD file (and that's as far as the argument needs to go, unless you give credence to Apple's "look and feel" predatory lawsuits, because this is well established fair use).

      A CAD file is not a firearm (or the finished product of whatever it's a model of). It's not even a full template, so much as it's specific instructions as to what the finished result should look like. To turn a CAD file into a firearm, you need some sort of replication device - whether it's a mill/lathe/etc. or a 3D printer - it doesn't matter.

      What's more, these CAD blueprints need more than just a single replication device; they need to be manufactured from a number of materials with different physical properties of rigidity, strength, and durability. It took 20 years for eg. carbon fiber firearm receivers to become regarded as sturdy enough for common use, and there are hundreds of other parts which have a very stringent requirement for accurate production - barrels, firing pins, firing linkages, and triggers in particular. Even then, you'll only have an approximate replica, not an exact copy - and the firearm industry, like all machine markets, is an industry where you've either got cheap mass production or quality as an output, with little market room for anything in between - and it's heavily skewed towards quality.

      I imagine they might get C&D letters as soon as it becomes trivial to print not only the 'firearm' from a 3D printer, but also everything else. You know, a functionally identical replica. And it'll have to be That's many years in the future. Many, many years.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    29. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally, 3d printing files (STL, gcode, or whatever) can be expected to be treated as plans to make something. There's plenty of legal precedent regarding plans, so the likely outcome is pretty well known.

      That brings up some interesting questions.

      Would files for 3D printing be considered creative expression that falls under copyright, like software?

      Depends -- if it's plans for a creative, non-functional object (e.g. figurines), copyright would apply.
      If it's plans for a functional object (e.g. a wholly-unadorned mechanism), copyright wouldn't apply.
      If it's plans for a functional object with non-functional design elements, copyright may apply to the non-functional elements, depending on their separability and, once separated from the functional elements, their independent eligibility for copyright protection. (The interplay amongst utility patents, design patents, and copyright on such objects is complicated and not one-to-one -- fuck the law.)

      Would patents related to the object apply to the 3D printer files? Or only to the printed object?

      Patents do not cover the plans -- else you couldn't even copy a patent because you'd be reproducing the patented invention!

      Would the printed 3D object be covered under copyright?

      See above -- under copyright, a work and a comprehensive description of that work are very closely linked (derivative work), so the same answers apply.

    30. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's copyright, not patent.

    31. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I got it a gun with Micky Mouse(r) ears for iron sights!

      That... that actually sounds kinda awesome...

      Hey there, hi there, ho there, it's made for you and me. M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    32. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of The Pirate Bay? Endless threats, lawsuits, raids, prosecutions and harassment later it is still going strong. So far the only stuff ever removed was child pornography.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makerbot just announced a CHEAP 3D scanner, so up yours!

    34. Re:No takedowns. No removals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most classic firearm designs are no longer in patent protection. (c) wouldn't apply at all. Please have a clue what you're talking about before wanking.

  3. While I am all for a Thingiverse alternative...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that this would be my Thingiverse alternative of choice. Any time these people do anything I can't help but feel like they are shills with the express purpose of providing an excuse to legislate 3D printing into the ground.

  4. uh oh by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Better just move the hosting to North Korea right now and get it over with, lol.

    1. Re:uh oh by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Better just move the hosting to North Korea right now and get it over with, lol.

      You think think the Glorious Leader will welcome with open arms someone who believes his mission is to give uncontrollable numbers of weapons to the masses? I

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:uh oh by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Frankly, yes. He won't particularly care. North Korea, including "reservists" has the biggest standing army on the planet, three times bigger than the US military if you measure it in the number of soldiers.

      Lack of access to guns isn't what's keeping the North Korean people in check, proof positive that a right to bear arms isn't a utopian solution to a dictatorial government.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:uh oh by Sique · · Score: 1

      If the right people have access to guns, and the wrong ones don't, an aboundance of guns can be very stabilizing to a dictatorship. You just have to guarantee that your people always get more guns and ammunition than the rebels.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:uh oh by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Actually, they don't. Unless you consider their entire male population as reservists but ignore everyone else's. Which they do and we don't.

      Don't let actual knowledge of the situation prevent you from submitting a truthful depiction of the situation or anything, always better to sensationalize and lie.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  5. dragon dong also would been an acceptable answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first fleshlight file uploaded in 3... 2... 1...

  6. Punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It's a .44 Defcad, the most powerful handgun made, and it'll blow your head clean off. So - hey, knock it off with the laughter!"

    1. Re:Punk by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      "It's a .44 Defcad, the most powerful handgun printed, and it'll blow my hand clean off. So - hey, knock it off with the laughter!"

    2. Re:Punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's an .88 Defcad. It shoots through schools."

    3. Re:Punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to print orange tips on all of mine.

  7. NRA: free speech champs by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Two great causes that go great together.

    If you're a first amendment activist, you should be opposed to takedown efforts because censorship is bad, whether you're talking about porn, Wikileaks, DeCSS or 3D printer plans for guns.

    And Code (really? Code?) should hook up with the NRA and get their lobbying dollars on his side. After all, 3D printers don't kill people, people WITH 3D printers kill people.

    (Alternate joke: you can take my extrusion depositor when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!)

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno if the NRA would want to be on his side when the copyrighted designs of the gun manufacturers that support them are being posted on his website...

    2. Re:NRA: free speech champs by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    3. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Desler · · Score: 1

      His name is Cody. Submitter misspelled it and the "editor" was too dumb to actually notice and correct it.

    4. Re:NRA: free speech champs by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Copyrighted designs aren't really much of a thing in the gun industry. As a matter of fact tons of clones and copies are made of various designs.

      The Mauser bolt action is cloned by countless companies.
      The AR15 design is cloned by at least a few dozen different companies.
      The Colt 1911 design is cloned by Kimber, Rock Island, STI, SVI, Ruger, Remington, S&W, Springfield, Taurus, and about a bazillion more.
      The Beretta 92 design is cloned by both Taurus and Turkey
      The Walther P99 is cloned by Canik.
      The CZ-75 design is cloned by Tanfoglio and Canik.
      The Glock is cloned by Timberwolf
      The Ruger 10/22 is cloned by Volquartsen

      And so forth for many, many models. Gun technology in use today has been nearly perfected for close to 100 years. It truly is more about just making a quality product than the "IP" so many other industries worry about.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:NRA: free speech champs by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that gun designs are protected by patent, not copyright. Copyright might cover any drawings or specifications, which are not required in order to reverse-engineer a design.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:NRA: free speech champs by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      One important correction:

      The Ruger 10/22 is *improved* by Volquartsen

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    7. Re:NRA: free speech champs by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.

      Exactly right. Unfortunately, this is /., so you've been immediately modded as "flamebait."

      The flame you're baiting me with is the fire of truth.

    8. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by laziness.

    9. Re:NRA: free speech champs by ducman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The NRA doesn't represent the gun manufacturers. It's an association of dues-paying individual members.

      --
      "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
    10. Re:NRA: free speech champs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The problem with Free Speech is that most people have nothing important to say, so they need a gun to make you listen.

      No, the problem is a demonstrator with a sign using free speech can not stop a tank as happened in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Free speech didn't help the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. And it's not helping much in Syria today. Without firearms to back up free speech free speech means little, is practically useless, and may get demonstrators killed.

      Falcon

    11. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Werrismys · · Score: 1

      ...when properly installed and droven in. A friend installed a vollquarzen 2 days before a major competition and needless to say, what worked in trials didn't work out so well in real use. Needed some break-in.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    12. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Werrismys · · Score: 0

      It's also an association for non-paying non-members abroad and a model for human right movements everywhere. Keep up the good work, NRA! Most of the world is still slaves.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    13. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 2

      And yet all those millions of Iraqis with AK-47s didn't change anything in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Maybe your analysis is a little lacking?

    14. Re:NRA: free speech champs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And yet all those millions of Iraqis with AK-47s didn't change anything in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Maybe your analysis is a little lacking?

      But did Iraqis have AK-47s under Saddam? And how effective were they against US aid to Saddam? Reagan and Bush Sr allowed Saddam to use biological and chemical weapons against not just Iran but Iraqis too. And Saddam used them to great effect against his opponents. US support for Saddam Hussein only ended after Saddam invaded Kuwait, a non-democratic Sheikdom like much of the rest of the Arab world. What's really bad is that Bush, or at least his admin, knew Saddam was going to invade Kuwait but did nothing to stop it.

      And why did he invade Kuwait? Because Kuwait was Slant drilling into Iraq stealing Iraqi oil. Of course once Iraq was evicted from Kuwait the oil field was given to Kuwait, the Kuwaiti border was moved by the UN to encompass "11 oil wells, some farms and an old naval base that used to be in Iraq on the Kuwaiti side."

      Falcon

    15. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In theory....how cute that you believe it, especially when the NRA's positions consistently match those of the manufacturers rather than the owners, including the majority of their own members in many cases.

    16. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point. There have been revolutions in countries with guns, and those without, and in countries with free speech, and those without, and I can't think of any revolution where there hasn't been an arms imbalance to start with, whether no guns vs. guns or guns vs. chemical weapons and tanks. Being armed doesn't seem to be a necessary condition for revolution to occur, nor a firm indicator of its success once begun.

    17. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the RIAA represents artists.

    18. Re:NRA: free speech champs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point.

      You're not sure how a heavily armed military can defeat rebels with AK47s? Especially one that had and used biological and chemical weapons, ie Weapons of Mass Destruction?

      Falcon

    19. Re:NRA: free speech champs by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      The original comment of yours I replied to made the point that free speech on its own wasn't sufficient for protest against government, and required firearms to back it up. I made the point that whether or not the populace is armed does not seem to have much to do with whether or not protests, civil wars and rebellions seem to occur, in part because the government is always going to be bigger and better armed than any individual, and whether the individual is armed or not doesn't do much to change that imbalance. Your last post seems to concur with this and argue against an armed populace as being a counter to a suppressive government.

    20. Re:NRA: free speech champs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Of course the government is likely to be "bigger and better armed than any individual" but I guess you missed where I said "heavily armed military" and the military "used biological and chemical weapons". An AK47 is nothing compared to a chemical weapon dropped on a village. If lucky the shooter may cripple or down an aircraft otherwise people are not going to stop the aircraft from dropping said chemical bomb. An armed populace both protects and has to use free speech, they have to work together. Without arms free speech isn't good enough, Syria practically shut down the press opposed to the regime. A few brave reporters sneaked into Syria, putting their lives in jeopardy.

      My point was that free speech alone is not enough against a regime that will do whatever it takes to win. Peace loving Gandhi advocated violence for self-defense. Between Cowardice And Violence he said " I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race." Speech alone is unlikely to stop violence. Between speech and being armed, I'd rather be armed as speech may be neutralized, but an armed populace can not be stopped without massive interventions, such as the chemical weapons Saddam dropped on Iraqi villages.

      Falcon

  8. Feeling Luck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well are you punk?

  9. Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is Forbes the main media organization covering this? It feels like Forbes has exclusive leads on this 3D weapon printing business, at least when it's Defense Distributed.

  10. Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you are doing is perfectly legal, has been for years. The plans to build all sorts of guns have been out for ages. The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal. Calling it "hosting politically incendiary content" isn't going to make it so. It isn't going to be the Big Bad Government that is going to take you down either, it is the wife of the guy that has one of your designs blow up in his face that is going to soak up every dime you are worth. Go ask Paladin Press how it works, I am sure they will give you an ear full.

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calling it "hosting politically incendiary content" isn't going to make it so.

      I'm getting the feeling that we are only talking about this because he is an attention-whore who is slinging around some meaningless words in order to drive traffic to his site.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, at least the first-gen 3d printed designs were direct adaptations from http://www.cncguns.com/ CAD files, and that site has been up with little or no controversy for some years now. I assume that there has been some adaptation since then to support the limitations of 3d printing hardware.

      Yeah, yeah, '3d printers' are magic star-trek replicators from the future, and CNC gear is old-and-busted-industrial-economy-getting-your-hands-dirty; but small scale weapons manufacture really isn't news(especially when you can legally buy some of the really tricky parts(properly rifled and chromed barrel, say) and just screw them on to the lower receiver you hacked together.)

    3. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Much easier than trying to get him to "take down" designs would be to swamp it with useless or dangerous ones. To be any use it would have to have a review/rating system; but that could also be gamed, as one sees at Amazon or IMDB, for instance.

    4. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the government that is out to get you, the freedom-loving individual. It's the other freedom-loving individuals, whose freedom and yours have come into conflict. They're the ones who will fight you, and they're the ones who will use the government as a weapon in that fight.

      The government is indeed a brutal tool, but it's a double-edged sword, that will decide for itself who will be struck. That decision is based on the opinions of judges throughout history, who have made decisions on the subjective evidence of whose freedom must be suppressed to bring about the most benefit for society.

      To sway those judges to your favor, promise and demonstrate a benefit to society and respect for the freedom and happiness of others. To turn those judges against you, promise to incite mayhem and subvert government authority, and give others the tools and encouragement to do so.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say attention-whore since it's a for-profit business. He's a marketer, which may be just as bad.

    6. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1000% Agree.. Actually the government is the largest publisher of designs for firearms.. its called the patent office...

      1 of many examples http://www.scribd.com/doc/14652685/US-Patent-984519-Colt-1911

    7. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketer: professional attention-whore.

    8. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Don't think judges care about freedom and happiness, they are there to legitimize the government by insuring its regulations are consistent, even they are written by Satan himself.

    9. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal.

      What makes this much more interesting is the fact that I'm from a country where making guns is definitely not legal, and the government actually cares. Furthermore, I would really expect this to be the current norm globally.

      Internet really makes the world much smaller. It's going to be interesting to see how things will play out.

    10. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the government that is out to get you, the freedom-loving individual. It's the other freedom-loving individuals, whose freedom and yours have come into conflict. They're the ones who will fight you, and they're the ones who will use the government as a weapon in that fight.

      If you're of the persuasion that you have a right to force others (or have the government force others on your behalf) to give up their freedoms so you can have some warm, fuzzy feeling, you do not fit the description of "freedom-loving individual."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal.

      What makes this much more interesting is the fact that I'm from a country where making guns is definitely not legal, and the government actually cares. Furthermore, I would really expect this to be the current norm globally.

      Internet really makes the world much smaller. It's going to be interesting to see how things will play out.

      Unless your government allows you to have barrel assemblies and ammunition shipped in, I don't think they have a whole lot to worry about from printed guns.

      No more than they already had to worry about CNC milled guns, anyway.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Don't think judges care about freedom and happiness, they are there to legitimize the government by insuring its regulations are consistent, even they are written by Satan himself.

      Except a number of Supreme Court rulings have found what the federal government does unconstitutional. Regarding FDR's New Deal the Supreme Court ruled the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional. After they did this FDR tried to add more Justices to the Supreme Court as well as force current Justices to retire when they reached 70 years old. Opponents accused him of Court Packing for this attempt.

      Then again the Justices rubber stamped some the then current administration positions too, and came up with outrageous theories to back it up. In 2005 they ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government could stop states from legalizing medical marijuana. Although California making it legal had nothing to do with it the court ruled the feds could use the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA to bar states from legalizing marijuana.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      No, just that my definition of freedom differs from yours. Not even libertarians believe in absolute freedom; different people just draw the line at different places, and prize different aspects of freedom.

    14. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Your freedom ends at or before the point where it actually encroaches on mine (or anyone else's for that matter).

      Sadly, I have to include the qualifier "actually," as there is a subset of our population who have convinced themselves that if they perceive something you do encroaches on their rights, you shouldn't be allowed to do it - i.e., those who honestly think they have a right to not be offended.

      How would you define the term?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about my right to break into your house and piss on your couch? The point is, there is no such thing as complete freedom. You could have complete anarchy, but that won't look like freedom when you have zero protection. Freedom's must have limits, because we live in the real world. I'm not going to argue about the effectiveness of gun control; I just want to point out that your ideals are unattainable.

    16. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government really doesn't care because making a gun is perfectly legal.

      What makes this much more interesting is the fact that I'm from a country where making guns is definitely not legal, and the government actually cares. Furthermore, I would really expect this to be the current norm globally.

      Internet really makes the world much smaller. It's going to be interesting to see how things will play out.

      Unless your government allows you to have barrel assemblies and ammunition shipped in, I don't think they have a whole lot to worry about from printed guns.

      Ammunition, maybe -- in some countries, though, ammunition controls are sufficiently looser than firearms controls to be moot. In some, they're as tight or tighter (which IMO makes sense, since ammo is really harder to make from scratch than guns).
      But it's quite feasible, right now, to make a largely 3D-printed gun for various low-pressure cartridges with hardware store supplies (steel pipe & fittings, mostly) for the high-strength parts. Not as easy as an AR-15 lower with every other damn piece purchased off the shelf, and the designs aren't there yet, but it's feasible, and in a few years there will be well-tested designs for exactly this published all over the internet.

      No more than they already had to worry about CNC milled guns, anyway.

      Partly true, partly not. 3D printers are as low as $500 these days, and no CNC mill that will substantially ease gunmaking is that cheap. There's also less skill barrier (though still a long way from everybody and their grandma) in getting from .stl to finished part via FDM than via CNC machining. In fact, given designs adapted to manual machining (no complicated curves or compound angles that are hard to follow by hand and/or require extra setups to generate), manual machining requires less up-front cost and less skill than CNC machining, though more of both than 3d printing. And the CNC mill still doesn't help much with the most difficult part of the gun for 3D printing -- the barrel. So you'll be using hardware-store pipe there too, if you can't buy barrels off the shelf.

      But the larger point, that anyone who wants a gun can probably make one without a 3D printer if they apply themselves, is very true -- we've been doing it for hundreds of years, and it ain't rocket science.

    17. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      I define it the same as you.

      However, I know we disagree on what we mean by "rights", and I'm fairly sure we disagree on whether freedom is something all on its own, or just one particular desirable quality for a society which should be balanced against other goals.

      That's where we could spend a dozen posts talking past each other and getting nowhere :)

    18. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

      So is it okay to swing your fist within 1mm of my face? It's a bit dangerous. The potential for injury is high. It would annoy most people to the point of being unable to function normally.

      What about drink driving? I mean really blind drunk. You might not kill anyone, but there is a significant chance you may. Your freedom presents an unacceptable risk.

      Say you are a violent disturbed person. Should you be free to download a gun?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Frankly Code, no one gives a damn. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

      So is it okay to swing your fist within 1mm of my face? It's a bit dangerous. The potential for injury is high. It would annoy most people to the point of being unable to function normally.

      I think you misunderstand the point of a metaphor - it's not meant to be taken literally.

      FYI, if someone literally swings a fist at you, regardless of whether they actually make contact, they are committing a crime called "assault," because it violates your freedom to stand in a public place and not be physically attacked.

      Hence the reason the phrase is used as a metaphor and not as an allegory.

      What about drink driving? I mean really blind drunk. You might not kill anyone, but there is a significant chance you may. Your freedom presents an unacceptable risk.

      Well, for starters, there is no such "right to drive," nor is there a protected right to imbibe alcohol. That aside, by driving under the influence you are knowingly and willingly risking the lives (and thus, rights) of other people who have not agreed to any such condition. To use your own analogy, you may as well have taken a swing on every single person you come within range of.

      Nevermind the fact that drunk driving is not analogous to firearm ownership in any way, shape, or form.

      Say you are a violent disturbed person. Should you be free to download a gun?

      Well, that does create a bit of a conundrum, doesn't it? Before I could answer that, I would need a bit more qualifying information:

      - who is it that's claiming that a person is "violent and disturbed?"

      - how are those terms being defined?

      - by what metric are we measuring danger and disturbed-ness?

      Granted, there are some people who, based on normal observation, should not have access to weapons of any kind... the toothless guy who stands on a corner downtown, dressed in nothing but whitey-tighties, a tinfoil hat, and a sandwich board with some manner of mad ramblings scrawled upon it, screaming about how the pigeons are trying to steal his baby's pickle? Yea, that guy does not need to be armed (and, honestly, should be placed in a facility where he can get the care he obviously needs).

      But that's not what many people, especially the politically motivated, mean when they say "violent disturbed person." Some people, like Diane Feinstein, seem to believe that term applies to anyone who already owns a gun (Google "Mr and Mrs America, turn in your guns"). Other folks, take Rush Limbaugh for example, apparently think that anyone who disagrees with them is "violent and disturbed."

      And therein lies the real problem with armament limitation laws: The definitions of who would be considered a restricted party, or what is considered a restricted weapon, are intentionally left vague, presumably so those who support such theories are able to cast a wide net and ensnare as many folks as possible.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they are hosting through an .onion or .i2p address from some godforsaken country, because otherwise 'the man' will raid them repeatedly.

  12. Interesting intersection of Patent and Copyright by Erich · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's usually hard to copyright a "thing". If you make a thing -- a new type of shelving or gun or glass or pen or chair or whatever -- you can't get a copyright on it, you can maybe get a patent on it.

    So for a CAD file of a gun, the CAD file could be copyrighted... but it would be copyrighted by the author, not by the manufacturer of the gun it was a clone of (unless they were the author, of course). Now, printing out the gun might be manufacturing something covered by patents... but copying the file wouldn't be creating the gun.

    3D printing will sure be interesting from a legal standpoint, it potentially brings copyright and patent law together for just about everything. I would hope that we could establish that CAD files for 3D printers are equal to recipes for the purposes of copyright: a series of steps to create something. But that's certainly not what happened for source code.

    --

    -- Erich

    Slashdot reader since 1997

  13. At this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is more likely, he will end up on the same lists as Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz, and Kim Dotcom. He will be accused of being a child molester, or accused of some other hanus crime, and will end up being hunted down in one form or another. If he is smart, he will set asside some money for a rescue operation.

  14. Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It will happen. The CNC machine and the 3D printer will morph together. I will be able to program my own gun parts design and share/sell it over the Internet. People will improve on my design and we will have much better guns and other products. Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.

  15. Re:LOL by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What he's really saying:

    "Please ignore that I have a tiny penis!!" *waves gun around*

    It's always been my contention that any male who makes derogatory statements about another man's genitalia is either projecting, or a closeted homosexual afraid of their own feelings.

    So... which is it, Chief?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  16. Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about before you become the google of something you prove that this even exists.

    Show me a working 3d printed gun. Not a lower for an AR, not a magazine, but an actually working 3d printed gun. That means you have to 3d print the parts that go bang. Otherwise you are just 3d printing gun accessories.

    1. Re:Less drama more substance by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Funny

      He could be the Hank Hill of 3D printing....

      "I sell guns and gun accessories."

    2. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Informative

      By law the lower for an AR IS the gun. Except for the serialed received every other component of a gun is considered parts.. Its the only part that requires a background check, and under most pending legislation will be the only actual part banned from sale to civilians (largely the same for magazines).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By law the lower for an AR IS the gun.

      Except right now they cannot even print a full lower receiver. All they can print is the lower receiver frame.

    4. Re:Less drama more substance by L3370 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lower receiver is the only part of the gun thats considered a gun by the law, and for good reason. It houses the magazine and the fire controls (safety, select fire--if applicable, trigger) and everything connects to it.

      For a car analogy, its the frame and the engine. If you can make receivers, you're in the league with Ford and Toyota. If you make buttstocks and compensators, you're that company that sells import tuner supplies and curb feelers for gigantic low-riders.

    5. Re:Less drama more substance by L3370 · · Score: 2

      What they print is referred to as a "stripped" lower, like the frame of a car. fire controls and various parts within it are 5$ items. springs, pins, and various pieces of shaped metal.

    6. Re:Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what?

      A lower without an upper is useless. That means all they have to do is update the law. Making barrels is still a lot harder to do, same with actions. The law is outdated and should regulate the parts that are hardest to produce.

    7. Re:Less drama more substance by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      It also afforded a flat surface to stamp, which apparently was the other reason Colt chose the lower.

      Traditionally, it was a part which handled high pressures / forces (so the frame of a revolver, &c.) --- the AR-15 is unusual in the serial-numbered lower receiver not being a part subjected to extreme forces and hence suitable to fabrication w/ inexpensive materials.

      Hopefully this won't get us to the point of more parts being serial-numbered as is sometimes seen in other countries.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    8. Re:Less drama more substance by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Barrels would be a bad choice, because general-purpose parts will do it with some adaptations. A good bit of plumbing will do as a shotgun barrel. No rifling, obviously, but that's only an issue if you care about range.

    9. Re:Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then make it the receiver.

      That is the part that is considered the gun when dealing with bolt actions.

      Colt should never have been allowed to serialize the lower. You can make a lower out of sheet metal by hand. They are trivial to construct via many methods other than 3d printing.

    10. Re:Less drama more substance by c0lo · · Score: 1

      So what?

      A lower without an upper is useless. That means all they have to do is update the law. Making barrels is still a lot harder to do, same with actions. The law is outdated and should regulate the parts that are hardest to produce.

      You mean... the bullets?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    11. Re:Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, those are very easy to produce.

      The receiver is machined, not 3d printed. In all other firearms it is considered the firearm.

    12. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're technically correct only when not immersed in the nomenclature and definitions of the field. To any person not a shooter, a gun is a gun and requires all the components. To many shooters it is that too.

      By way of particular example, my understanding is that in the state of california, a firearm is legally considered loaded if there is any ammunition that it can accept anywhere *near* it. Similarly, a person not seen in (7?) years may be defined as dead.

      To the ATF, the government, and everyone but a cop or TSA agent, the gun *IS* the AR lower by force of legal fiction. That's the (damned, stupid, smart?) law -- and it doesn't care whether it's correct or realistic.

      Your point, while well intentioned ... well... it misses the point of these models. And possibly the problem if you are pro gun control.

      These models are made by and for people who find restrictive firearm legislation objectionable for a wide variety of reasons.

      To that end, a CAD model of a functioning AR lower legally enables me to obtain a functioning AR with the purchase of lawful, unregulated, unlicensed parts such as a barrel and upper.

      In every meaningful way that exists in states that don't ban such items outright -- this is a firearm manufactured for personal use and exempt from many regulations (as I feel they should be).

      That I need to procure a barrel is nearly irrelevant -- anyone with a printer can legally have a hundred AR's grandfathered in if there is a ban.

    13. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Bullets are INCREDIBLY easy to make at home. As a matter of fact due to the recent ammo shortages I've been casting my own from scrap lead.

      A GOOD reloading setup that will make ammo as good or better than factory ammo will cost you less than $300. Lee Precision actually makes loading kits that will do nearly as good a job (though with a lot more effort and frustration) for around $25.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    14. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Except right now they cannot even print a full lower receiver. All they can print is the lower receiver frame.

      Correct, and as I said, that part is legally the gun. Every other part including those that go into the lower receiver is unregulated.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    15. Re:Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am in favor of some gun control, like all rational gun owners are. Some people should not be allowed to own guns, children, the insane, violent felons.

      The lower being the gun was always a bad idea. It should be the action.

    16. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Colt should never have been allowed to serialize the lower. You can make a lower out of sheet metal by hand.

      You can make SOME lower receivers out of sheet metal by hand, but not an AR15 lower. The AK-47 is far easier to duplicate in that regard. Here's a guy that made one out of a shovel . . . http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2012/12/06/diy-shovel-to-ak-47-50-photos/

      Anyways, making a gun at home isn't illegal. All that matters is that one part that is necessary for the operation of the gun be serialized as the receiver so that the whole thing can't be sold/mailed. How hard the part is to reproduce isn't an issue. As a matter of fact you can legally buy partially done receivers where all the work is already done except for a few holes drilled in it or a rail cut and that's fine because until those last couple operations are done its not a functional part (a lot of times you'll see those listed as "80% receivers").

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    17. Re:Less drama more substance by c0lo · · Score: 1

      My bad. I should have asked: the ammo/cartridge? If banned/restricted, can you 3D-print the gun powder and the primer?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    18. Re:Less drama more substance by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Bullets are INCREDIBLY easy to make at home. As a matter of fact due to the recent ammo shortages I've been casting my own from scrap lead.

      A GOOD reloading setup that will make ammo as good or better than factory ammo will cost you less than $300. Lee Precision actually makes loading kits that will do nearly as good a job (though with a lot more effort and frustration) for around $25.

      My bad. I was thinking the entire cartridge. Suppose you no longer find gun powder/caps...

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    19. Re:Less drama more substance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Gun powder is trivial to make. Especially for old black powder cowboy guns.

      All this stuff was made in the 1800s so by today's standards it is all pretty simple.

    20. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Powder is fairly easy to make. Charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter mixed and ground in the proper ratios. Granted that's traditional black powder not the smokeless powder we mostly use today, but it still goes bang just fine.

      As an ignition source ("caps") there are several options. Homemaking a berdan primer would be possible as the anvil is in the case (which can be reused - most people don't reload berdan primed cases as they're a hassle but in this scenario they'd be easier). All you'd need is something to punch the cups out (a regular pin punch of the right diameter would likely suffice, and they make specific tools for punching percussion caps out of aluminum cans). After that you just need a priming compound. With the aforementioned tool the idea is to use paper caps from a child's paper cap gun as they go bang and produce sufficient spark, though I'm sure there are other chemicals that would suffice.

      That's kinda beside the point though in that there's a LOT of primers out there already. They're a consumable, but most reloaders buy them in bulk to save money. I typically buy them 15 to 20 thousand at a time when I restock (but then again I shoot between 5k and 10k rounds per year on the range).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:Less drama more substance by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What they print is referred to as a "stripped" lower, like the frame of a car. fire controls and various parts within it are 5$ items. springs, pins, and various pieces of shaped metal.

      All of which can easily be machined on any number of readily available pieces of equipment; CNC mill, drill press, et. al.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Less drama more substance by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well, save the springs, those are kind of a bitch to manufacture in a home-based shop.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Less drama more substance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The law is outdated and should regulate the parts that are hardest to produce.

      BS. The law needs to be pulled out from the law books by it's roots and left to shrivel and die.

      Falcon

    24. Re:Less drama more substance by Werrismys · · Score: 1

      By US law. In other parts of the world the definition of "gun" varies. In Finland for example, there is no definition of "gun" in the law. In Finland, the "gun" is its serial number. There are vague definitions of gun parts. So, any single part is not a "gun" but some parts that either touch the cartridge when the gun goes off, or are "under pressure", or touch parts that fall under former categories, are "gun parts" and need a permission. But not always: a Mosin bolt is not a restricted part... but an MP5 trigger housing is. It's the wookie defence equivalent of legislation.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    25. Re:Less drama more substance by Werrismys · · Score: 1

      by US law. Here, AR's bolt, barrel, upper receiver and lower receiver are restricted items and need a permit. Probably barrel extension too.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    26. Re:Less drama more substance by L3370 · · Score: 1
      I understand where your heart and mind is when you say "all rational gunowners," but can't help feeling that is a somewhat loaded statement. Allow me a moment to explain why.
      You see, I feel I am a rational gun owner. I maintain a collection of firearms, some purchased through licensed dealers with the appropriate background check, others through private sales. I've never pointed a gun at a human being, loaded or unloaded, or even at an object I had no intention of shooting. I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds and never accidentally shot someone or something. I have never had a firearm negligently discharge at all, let alone near or in the direction of an unintended object. Ask a chef if they've ever accidentally cut themselves with tools of their trade and the answer is undoubtedly "Yes." As an amateur enthusiast of firearms, I have a perfect safety record. Amongst other enthusiasts, professional or amateur, my safety record isn't an exception...but the norm. How does "rational" gun control methods benefit me in or protect the public from me in any way?

      Firearms technology is fully matured and a few hundred years old. How long can we expect to regulate this knowledge? The mechanics behind the operation of a firearm is incredibly simple. Children can be (and often are) fully trained to operate, strip, and build a firearm. Once the materials science makes manufacturing simple, what hope do we have in implementing rational gun control?

      The lower being the gun was always a bad idea. It should be the action.

      I AGREE. AR-15's would be lumped in with a majority of rifles made since The 30's and not the target of such overreach. The action of the AR platform is so simple and elegant that underneath the plastics and tactical matte-black finish is a rifle no different than your grandpa's wooden stock hunting rifle. Regulating the action would only further highlight the irrational nature of such policy.

      Again, I get where you are going with this, but most gun control is not rational--just stated as such to make people believe it really is. Gun control is just a tool politicians use to polarize the voter base. It's easier to keep finding a way to be re-elected than it is to cure the underlying socio-economic problems that produce the need or desire for people to resort to gun related crime. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why our president is looking to restrict Assault Rifles when 90% of gun crimes are commited with pistols and shotguns. The low hanging fruit isn't even being picked here.

    27. Re:Less drama more substance by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      And ESPECIALLY insane violent felon children.

    28. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct and I suspect this is the agenda behind this whole exercise.

      By making the lower a standard part, they hope to force the law to be updated, probably to the barrel as you mentioned.

      This is like taking a mulligan. I think they are hoping that the current pro-gun movement/fad will put popular pressure on the new gun laws, to make them more permissive and anti-federal in general.

    29. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the government the lower receiver IS the gun, and everything else is an accessory. While i agree its a silly definition... technically if you print a lower, you have legally printed a gun.

      But back to your point, if you have the proper hardware ( that no hobbiest could afford ) you could print an upper, and most other compnents of more rugged materials than HDPE. Some of the parts wont last long but it would work

    30. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But priming compound, while easy to make in general, is hard to make at home and without eventually blowing your fingers off. Hell, even black powder is a bit touchy for my taste, but all the easily doable priming compounds are a whole other level.

    31. Re:Less drama more substance by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Colt was forced to by the ATF as the ATF was most concerned about people making/having full auto guns. The receiver is where that particular 'magic' happens in the AR-15.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    32. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Casting your own bullets is very toxic. Do some reading on lead vapor poisoning. There are ways to do it safely, you should look into those.

    33. Re:Less drama more substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't help feeling that is a somewhat loaded statement

      I believe you misspelled "flamebait".

    34. Re:Less drama more substance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      When done outdoors (ie, not in an enclosed space) at normal melting temperatures the risk is negligible. I've been casting for years and as part of my regular physicals have my lead levels tested and have never been outside of the norm.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  17. Pretty sad by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 0

    The biggest thing people are taking from home 3D printing is building guns. America, Fuck Yeah!

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Pretty sad by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The only reason why this is even a story is because people make a big deal out of it. "Spirit of defiance" and all that (nevermind that it's perfectly legal). Note that the guy's message is less about the utility of the thing, and more about giving the middle finger to "them".

    2. Re:Pretty sad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well, FWIW, that is a far more useful purpose than counterfeiting Darth Vader bobbleheads. And a lot less likely to run afoul of current IP law.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  18. Let's play poker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guys is terrible at bluffs. Before he had the shield of "citizen defense" with the printed guns, but now by repeating something intentionally irritating to the government, err, ALL governments, shows him as someone trying to make his name known, instead of trying to be useful to the species.

    Sad. :'( y u do dat?

  19. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    False dichotomy.

    Why can't it be both?

  20. Immediate Goal by carrier+lost · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want to be the Google of naming things "The Google of ..."

    1. Re:Immediate Goal by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      When the name of your company turns into a verb, you know you're successful.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Immediate Goal by carrier+lost · · Score: 1

      When the name of your company turns into a verb, you know you're successful.

      Or commoditized, i.e., kleenex, xerox, band-aid, etc

      ;)

  21. Let me know when you can print quality steel, pal by Looker_Device · · Score: 1

    Real guns are generally made of quality metals and/or very high quality ceramics.

    Until your 3D printer can do those, you're just printing a really cheap-ass stock.

    --
    Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
  22. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real guns are generally made of quality metals and/or very high quality ceramics.

    Until your 3D printer can do those, you're just printing a really cheap-ass stock.

    Two words: Solvable Problem

  23. Jonny get your gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So mom and dad are happy Jonny is working on the computer in the basement and not getting into trouble. A few days later up comes Jonnny with his 3d printed AR-15! And parents think it is hard raising kids now.

  24. Moist Nuggets by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

    Can I 3D print a Mosin Nagant for cheaper than buying one yet?

    1. Re:Moist Nuggets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on what state/country you live in...

    2. Re:Moist Nuggets by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unless the supply of those all of a sudden vanishes or you want one of the better or rarer ones that will probably never happen. You would probably be able to print one up for less than a "U.S. Rifle, 7.62mm, Model of 1916" or even a really nice Finnish M39 but for a run of the mill M44 or M91/30 the material cost of a 3d printed one would be more than the cost to buy one from the store.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Moist Nuggets by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't think that's physically possible...

      They practically give those things away at gun shows. If you've ever fired one, you know why.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  25. lousy filthy Brutals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

  26. Re:Interesting intersection of Patent and Copyrigh by Sique · · Score: 1

    In this case, it would be probably a design patent they could be infringing on, or a trade dress they violate.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  27. Re:LOL by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    False dichotomy.

    Why can't it be both?

    Fair enough - closeted homosexual with diminutive phallus it is!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  28. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Rhywden · · Score: 1

    Two words: Not really.

    Unless you can show me the 3D printer which will withstand upwards of 1500 C. And, no, gluing the stuff together is not a good idea.

  29. Three words by chill · · Score: 1
    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  30. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Titanium - that any good?

    http://www.arcam.com/

    (Ti preferred to steel for most additive manufacturing due to anisotropy post-melt - it's not cheap, but can make some pretty things for your desk, as well as components of racing cars. The precision is not close to good enough for making guns though - google EBM vs SLS for more information)

  31. 3D print a DVD? by iced_tea · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you can "3D print a DVD". You submit the AutoCad drawing of a circular disk, even down to the small etchings in the resin (that may or may not contain copyrighted content).

    That wouldn't constitute piracy would it? It's just digital representation of a a physical object. =)

    1. Re:3D print a DVD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could get a 3d printer that good they yes in theory you could. Most do not work on the micron level though...

    2. Re:3D print a DVD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know, but some people are able to print a functional record from an mp3 file...

    3. Re:3D print a DVD? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you can "3D print a DVD".

      I'm gonna go ahead and guess a big fat NO on that one. For obvious reasons.

      Then again, give the technology a few more iterations, and that may very well become a possibility.

      That wouldn't constitute piracy would it? It's just digital representation of a a physical object. =)

      Try counterfeiting (which, technically, defines all computer "piracy").

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  32. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So not a fan of poly frames then?

  33. Re:LOL by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.

    So, Anonymous Coward, if it has nothing to do with your small penis, if all your guns were bright pink you'd be perfectly find with that?

  34. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Unless you can show me the 3D printer which will withstand upwards of 1500 C

    You can choose from lots. They're not terribly cheap though.

    http://www.arcam.com/technology/electron-beam-melting/

    (I've used them. Pieces come out a little "rough" to the touch [+- 0.2mm I think], and have to be finished to look like the samples you'll see on the official website - the material properties are however "better than cast", which is why serious people are using them today for serious purposes. Not well enough defined for printing a gun you can use without further work, but if you're prepared to finish by hand, it would do at a pinch. I'm the same person who commented on Arcam above)

  35. Re:LOL by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

    Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.

    So, Anonymous Coward, if it has nothing to do with your small penis, if all your guns were bright pink you'd be perfectly find with that?

    You don't have to have a small penis to not like bright pink as a color, or a penis at all. :P

    That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them? Old men?

    Also, bright pink is a really impractical color for a gun but it'll do the job no matter what color it is.

    --
    I was raised on the command line, bitch

    "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  36. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guns are primarily for hunting, some species are colorblind but others are not. I don't own "shiny" guns and prefer some camo pattern.

    In case you care, both I and your mom are happy with my penis size.

  37. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them? Old men?

    Having a proxy for a big dick is as good as having the real thing and has nothing to do with the size of any existing one, when the bearer wants power (perceived internally or otherwise). To be true, your argument should read "if people only own guns because they wish they had a longer penis, why don't *all* women own guns?" And the answer to that, is the root of this debate (of gun control for safety vs gun rights for freedom).

  38. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by L3370 · · Score: 1

    Ceramics--not really. Glock had this but quickly learned they were junk. High grade polymers--basicaly good quality plastic-- are now very common in firearms and have proven durability that rivals steel, with the added benefit of not rusting or adding lots of weight
    I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think you catch my drift.

  39. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, brah, but she fakes it.

  40. Re:LOL by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Actually a distracting color like pink can buy you some time to get the first shot.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  41. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, she is the happiest grandma in the nursing home ;)

  42. Re:Pay the gun nuts no attention. by lxs · · Score: 2

    I hate gun nuts as much as you, and yet I applaud what he is doing. We need more repositories for printable 3D objects on the Internet.

    In the US there is a tradition of unsavory characters you wouldn't leave alone with your dog defending your freedoms. People like Larry Flynt and RMS and this guy.

  43. Re:While I am all for a Thingiverse alternative... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Any time these people do anything I can't help but feel like they are shills with the express purpose of providing an excuse to legislate 3D printing into the ground.

    By that logic, Gutenburg was a shill for the original copyright laws.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  44. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by c0lo · · Score: 1

    It will happen. The CNC machine and the 3D printer will morph together. I will be able to program my own gun parts design and share/sell it over the Internet. People will improve on my design and we will have much better guns and other products. Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.

    What good is a gun without ammunition? (what if instead of controlling guns, the US govt would switch to ban ammunition and/or gun powder and/or primers? It'd be just as simple as to make "illegal to possess or handle explosives in any shape, form or packaging without a license"... this in the name of "the war on terror")

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  45. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    lol... yes i can imagine this. 2-3 people actually doing work and producing good designs and 9,999,998 people making brain dead changes which produce exploding guns. 10 Million "designers" is a bad idea for any project, most will not be qualified for anything and all, most of the rest will be "grunt work only" qualified.

  46. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.

    When your software blows up in your face it's embarrasing.

    When your AR15 does the same?

    (Anyway, it's already been done - it's called the HK416)

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  47. dailymail? by csumpi · · Score: 1

    What is this? The dailymail? Front page story without substance?

    3d printable guns? As in water guns for kids? Or do you mean real guns? You can't even make a 3d printer hotend with a 3d printer, how would printing a working gun be possible?

    What's next, search engines with 3d printable nuclear warheads?

  48. Simple way to get it taken out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post 3d printer plans for child porn.

  49. Re:Pay the gun nuts no attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole point of printable guns is to bypass laws and safeguards meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable

    Speaking of that, take your meds and get away from mommy's keyboard, Bradley.

  50. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a gun nut, reducing arguments to black or white issues. Or you have a tiny penis.

    So... which is it, Chief?

  51. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Real guns are generally made of quality metals and/or very high quality ceramics.

    Until your 3D printer can do those, you're just printing a really cheap-ass stock.

    Or, you're printing a really cheap-ass mold for the high-grade stock you're going to make later.

    Until someone comes out with a high-grade polymer for 3D printers, I think this (using the printed item as a mold for further production) will be the way to go.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  52. This is all just a lot of posturing by spitzak · · Score: 1

    1. There are plenty of people with access to a machine shop and the correct skills to build a gun right now. And they can build *all* the parts, including ones exposed to gasses and pressures different than ambient air. This adds nothing new.

    2. If in fact home 3D printing gets to the point that you can actually manufacture a working gun (not just a "part") then it is also going to be able to manufacture replacement car parts, replacement parts for other machines, or entire machines. Then they are going to get attacked by the people who own the copyrights and trademarks on those designs who are relying on their control of the design for their own profit. I predict these guys will fold in a week and remove all trademark-infringing content, which will probably put in perspective the relative power of the "evvvvil govmint is trying to take my guns" verses other things in the current world.

  53. Re:Pay the gun nuts no attention. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    How can something like SXSW let a dangerous gun nut speak?

    Same way Slashdot lets stupid marginalizing assholes like you speak - they respect the First Amendment.

    You, obviously, do not.

    Why are we letting this small group of very insane people get so much speaking time on our media?

    Uh, Equal Time Provision maybe? Gotta provide a counter-point to all those left-wing fringe lunatics who also receive a fair amount of media attention.

    The whole point of printable guns is to bypass laws and safeguards meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

    No, it's not.

    Correspondingly, there is a huge intersection between the mentally ill and gun nuts because crazy people hoard weapons and are obsessed with defense and doomsday scenarios.

    No, there's not.

    Side note: I never have figured out how someone like this AC can, in one breath, refer to anyone who disagrees with them as "insane people," then subsequently posit some seriously off-his-nut shit not a paragraph later, and not realize the hypocrisy.

    Then again, perhaps that's a side effect of being a loon - you say crazy shit and don't notice.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  54. Time for in the line of fire 2 (3D) not in 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for in the line of fire 2 (3D) not in 3D

  55. The answer remains the same by DaKong · · Score: 1

    Seed autonomous, self-powered file servers throughout the world. Allow anyone to upload/download information from them. Then there will be no way to ever limit information again.

    --
    If not us, who? If not now, when?
  56. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 2

    I do wonder then if you can use other fuels as a propellant, anything from propane onwards can be compressed and ignited to force a projectile, not unlike in an IC engine.

    What is the government going to do? Ban everything from Gasoline onwards? No flammable fuels anymore?

    That does not even touch on the fact that gunpowder is trivial to make yourself. If people could make it hundreds of years ago with their technology level, I'm sure a suitably driven individual could do it now in his backyard.

  57. Looking at printers now by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Makerbot will not me getting my money however, closed their source and censorship. That says to me they are really not interested in my business.

    --


    Got Code?
  58. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    I am quite certain that for the time being (as long as we have at least 5 rational people as part of SCOTUS) ammunition will be considered as fundamentally inseparable from "arms."

  59. Your point dissolves in reality by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What you are doing is perfectly legal, has been for years.

    That's very true.

    But it ALSO didn't stop the plans from being yanked from other 3D printing repositories.

    And it ALSO did not stop a printer manufacturer from pulling a 3D printer that he had already rented, and refusing to allow him to rent.

    To me it doesn't matter WHO he is fighting, what matters is that in a short time he has seen very real censorship around this topic and thus exhibited a strong need for what he is providing. So in fact, contrary to your opinion there are a LOT of people who give a damn that even unpopular material is allowed to be published.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  60. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    It's going to be a struggle for government to implement a ban that covers only a certain class of semi-auto rifles and accessories. A full ban on ammunition? They'd probably do it if they could, but I don't see it happening anytime in the near term.

  61. Pretty good actually by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    What good is a gun without ammunition?

    Given that the person you are aiming the gun at has no idea if it is loaded or not, actually pretty good as a deterrent.

    That ignores of course the incredible ease with which you can make something to fire out of a gun (worst case, you can make a breech-loader and fire anything at all).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  62. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    What good is a gun without ammunition? (what if instead of controlling guns, the US govt would switch to ban ammunition and/or gun powder and/or primers? It'd be just as simple as to make "illegal to possess or handle explosives in any shape, form or packaging without a license"... this in the name of "the war on terror")

    Banning ammo would be even harder. Although few do it some people make their own ammo. Making gunpowder is and isn't easy. Ammo shells can repeatedly be reused. And it's easy to form new slugs by melting old ones.

    Falcon

  63. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Exactly.
    Whenever some fool suggests that government should ban ammunition instead of guns, I suggest that they bring a case of ammo across the border and try to convince U.S. customs that it doesn't fall under the classification of "arms".
    Every country in the world treats ammunition as "arms" from an import/export and regulatory standpoint.

  64. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a proxy for a big dick is as good as having the real thing and has nothing to do with the size of any existing one, when the bearer wants power (perceived internally or otherwise).

    And if you step back and look at it objectively, who is the more pitiable person -- the one who wants a gun as a penis substitute, or the one who wants to take away everyone else's penis substitutes?

  65. Re:LOL by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

    I like big bright pink penors.

  66. They need Tor for this to work (for legal reasons) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This won't work unless they run it via a Tor onion address. The authorities are going to go after them for sure. Even if it is legal technically it's bound to collapse eventually. This is a perfect project for bitcoin donations and Tor. There are hosts which accept bitcoins so the whole thing could be done with relative impunity.

  67. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Ammo shells can repeatedly be reused. And it's easy to form new slugs by melting old ones.

    Slugs are not a problem. Now, tell me about caps/primers.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  68. The lower IS the gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lower receiver is the only part that's regulated under law. Barrels, uppers, trigger assemblies, stocks, mags - they can all be delivered to your door. For a lower you need a background check, and if the laws were to pass, you might not be able to get it at all. That's sort of the point. In 20 years, any retard will be able to build a gun without leaving their house.

  69. History may run in the same tracks sometimes by CBob · · Score: 1

    Paging Mr Luty....

    And FWIW, anyone who knows their way around the Harbor Freight catalog is just as "dangerous". Knowing CNCZone exists is also a warning sign.

  70. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you and your huge penis would enjoy driving around in a bright pink car.

  71. Re:LOL by BattleApple · · Score: 1

    That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them?

    Loose vaginas

  72. Re:LOL by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    only for you, she doesn't want to be a bad mother and hurt your feelings.

  73. How does slashdot feel about 3d printed guns? by Sark666 · · Score: 1

    I've read numerous slashdot posts on freedom to do what someone wants with hardware they have bought, or hacking the device to expand its capabilities or do something with it that wasn't intended. I'm not much of a tinkerer myself but I always agreed with freedom to do whatever you want with what you own. So how do people feel about this? How could it possibly be prevented?

    This isn't even a hack; instead of print these parts it's simply print these which so happen to assemble into a firearm.

    When I first heard of 3d printing I was really impressed and thought of lots of practical applications for this new tech but for some reason I never thought of weapons. Once I heard of that I thought that this crosses a line. I certainly don't want it where someone can just go home and print a gun. And then I read about ammo being printed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

    This is the first time a new tech that could very well become commonplace in the home has given me pause.

    And short of making 3d printers illegal, what could be done even if desired?

    1. Re:How does slashdot feel about 3d printed guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I first heard of 3d printing I was really impressed and thought of lots of practical applications for this new tech but for some reason I never thought of weapons. Once I heard of that I thought that this crosses a line. I certainly don't want it where someone can just go home and print a gun.

      In the US, anybody can legally just go home and build a gun -- but of course it takes time to get the skills, most people would rather spend money than time, so they buy one instead. In other parts of the world, or for certain types of gun, that's illegal, but still very possible, and yet few people bother. Few people bother, even when it is legal, so why do you think they will just because a 3D printer is involved? For the most part, people who want guns already buy them (legally or black market), while people who don't want them won't buy or print them, because they don't want one!

      And then I read about ammo being printed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

      Understand that that's not ammo, that's a device to feed ammo. You still have to buy your ammo at the local Walmart, and if you live somewhere building your own gun is prohibited, I'd expect ammo sales are restricted as well. (If not, shouldn't it be?)

      This is the first time a new tech that could very well become commonplace in the home has given me pause.

      First new tech, in your short lifetime, sure! But do very old techs, such as hand drills and files, also give you pause? Because people make guns with those all the time. And it doesn't take near as much skilled work as you might think.

      And short of making 3d printers illegal, what could be done even if desired?

      Well, the same thing they did about the drills and files -- pass laws restricting what sort of weapons you can make, and arrest anyone you catch breaking them!

    2. Re:How does slashdot feel about 3d printed guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know using metal working tools: hammer, punch, drill, metal break (or a die and a shop press) to make a firearm receiver (the 3d printed part) is perfectly legal for your own use, go ask the ATF/BATFE. You need a serial number, etc. if you want to sell it.

      You also need to abide the NFA rules which means so many parts need to be made in the USA for the firearm you make, and you cannot make a select-fire or full-auto legally as it would be manufacturing after 1986 (see NFA).

  74. somewhere safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FreeNet.

  75. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Print in wax and use lost wax.

    There aren't many materials that you can cast in plastic molds.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  76. perfectly legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree in general, but legally it all depends on what you make, and what you want to do with it afterward. There also may be state restrictions.

    But that aside, the door is closing on this right, and the feds will outlaw personal manufacture for personal use here soon, now that its getting to easy for people to exercise the right.

  77. Nothing to see here. by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

    All parts of any legal gun are legal for anyone to make for their own use. This is only news because of the anti gun agenda of the media.

  78. Re:Let me know when you can print quality steel, p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: Not really.

    Unless you can show me the 3D printer which will withstand upwards of 1500 C.

    Read here. Then look here.
    There, I've shown you one.

    But let me guess, that will never scale down for home use, just like you probably looked at a Stratasys (in the early '90s) and said FDM will never scale down for home use?

    Give it a few years.

  79. ITAR not Copyright/Patent by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    I suspect violation the ITAR and Arms Export Control Act will lead to a far more speedy shutdown of such a "service" than a protacted copyright or patent case might.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  80. Re:Better Guns and Other Things Through Open Sourc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, tell me about caps/primers.

    I wud te yu abut them, but I bew tw fingers ff my right hand making them and nw I dnt tye s gd

  81. Re:LOL by ProfPanglos · · Score: 1

    My guns are primarily for hunting, some species are colorblind but others are not. I don't own "shiny" guns and prefer some camo pattern.

    In case you care, both I and your mom are happy with my penis size.

    Go home, Dad. You're drunk.