Slashdot Mirror
The ATF Not Concerned About 3D Printed Guns... Yet
derekmead writes "3D-printing gun parts has taken off, thanks to the likes of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed. While the technology adds a rather interesting wrinkle to the gun control debate, the ATF currently is pretty hands-off, ... 'We are aware of all the 3D printing of firearms and have been tracking it for quite a while,' Earl Woodham, spokesperson for the ATF field office in Charlotte, said. 'Our firearms technology people have looked at it, and we have not yet seen a consistently reliable firearm made with 3D printing.' A reporter called the ATF's Washington headquarters to get a better idea of what it took to make a gun 'consistently reliable,' and program manager George Semonick said the guns should be 'made to last years or generations.' In other words, because 3D-printed guns aren't yet as durable as their metal counterparts, the ATF doesn't yet consider them as much of a concern."
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in. In other words, one could make the argument that untraceable guns are more likely to be used in a crime than a traceable one.
Or one could make the argument that I watch too much TV.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
How hard would it be to pass a 3D printed gun through a metal detector? How hard would it be to make ceramic bullets to be fired from those guns?
Because buying a mill, lathe, 4130 and 4340 is difficult?
There is no actual 3d-printing of guns, yet. What people are doing is 3d-printing one part of the gun (the receiver) whose serial number is tracked for gun-registration purposes. For the purposes of those laws, the receiver "is" the gun: ordering a receiver is controlled, but ordering any combination of parts without a receiver is not. But that is pretty obviously a legal fiction (perhaps an unwise legal fiction): it is, by far, not the hardest part of the gun to manufacture. In fact, 3d printing hasn't really changed the game here, because CNC machines have been able to fabricate that part for years already. Sure, now it can also be done on a 3d printer, which just adds one more way to manufacture it.
From a technological perspective, what would be impressive is if a complete gun could be 3d printed, including the critical parts involved in actual firing. Then you could legitimately say you have "3d printed a gun".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
We have always had the natural right to make our own firearms in this country. As long as the person is not making the weapon to sell, then they have the right to do it. If they are selling the weapons then they must register as a firearm manufacturer and put serial numbers on the weapons. The exception to this is if a person has revoked their right by being convicted of a crime. This is not a civil right, this is a natural right. The ATF got involved because there had to be some definition of what constitutes a home built weapon. So, make yourself a gun. You don't need a 3D printer to do it.
Durable? Only needs to shoot once.
So you're against guns being made available to more people?
In other words, because 3D-printed guns aren't yet as durable as their metal counterparts
Just wait until they find out that the only reason most hobbyists are using plastic 3D printers is because that's the material their prototypes use -- something non-conductive. When they find out that it's just as easy to stick an arc-welder to the end of the arm and crap out metal instead of plastic, they're going to come into all the maker labs that have sprung up with guns blazing, mowing people down while screaming "For the children!". That really ought to be their slogan: We killed you because it was in the best interests of some child, somewhere, whom we'll plaster their face all over the news if you question why we just wontonly murdered fifty people whose only crime was that we felt like killin' bitches.
The only agency more corrupt than the ATF is the DEA when it comes to federal law enforcement agencies. A bunch of over-charged testosterone-filled dirt-bags who go to bed each night thinking they're right with God and kissing a picture of Judge Dredd that they hang above their headboard and masturbate to every morning. -_-
Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. But no, I really don't have a high regard for law enforcement in this country anymore... not when the mantra seems to be shoot first and call whatever you hit the target (and guilty). Oh, and screw asking questions, that would just slow down us chasin' down those big bad criminals that are everywhere. Of course, since we're all criminals under the law... *cough*
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's already legal to make a firearm for your own personal use, as long as you're not selling them. Also, it's not like you can print barrels and trigger groups and stuff. There's a lot more involved than just the parts that a 3D printer can print.
In the line of fire.
In that movie some uses a wooden gun. Now that is some think that the myth busters need to test will a wooden gun work?
Choose one:
1. The ATF is a bunch of ignorant buffoons. A 3D printed gun doesn't have to last long if you are planning a suicidal shooting spree! Stupid calcified bureacracies are simply incapable of formulating an intelligent and agile response to modern technolgy.
2. The ATF is a bunch of ignorant buffoons. Getting up in arms over some obscure thing like 3D printing isn't going to make anyone safer. Stupid meddling, overreaching bureacracies are simply incapable of forming a thoughtful and nuanced response to modern technology.
What is amiss with Slashdot's "length of post to display" algorithm?
This is NOT the first time some joker is using some trick to cause way too much text to be displayed in a post before the "Read the rest of this comment..." is displayed.
With this post, I am asking Slashdot to look into their algorithm and fix it.
18th century history shows us when a government wants to control the people, they take away their rights. Among these is the right to self-defense -- the right to weapons. 20th century history shows us they wanted to take away alcohol because people cannot be trusted to behave well with it. "For our own good" it was taken away from us. But people made their own, illegally. They countered the government in rebellion. In secret they made clubs. They organized. They defended themselves with guns... "assault weapons" even. The government realized the price was too high and the people were siding with the criminals. Prohibition was repealed.
The government hasn't lost the people yet. But if history is any model, the very moment the government tries to take too much away is when things will change. Things will have to get very bad before they get better. Let's hope that other countries don't step in as the US government fails. China would be very interested in picking our bones and to desperate people who are defending themselves from our government, even China will appear to be friendly and sympathetic.
The government and these anti-gun fools need to look to the past to see our future.
It's easier to make a gun from only plumbing parts than to fit the metal parts to a 3D printed receiver. The plastic grip does nothing but make it look nicer. Heck, a fireworks mortar loaded with a rock could kill you and those are made of PAPER, so you really don't even need plumbing pieces - you can make a gun from a newspaper. (Indeed, a paper mortar better matches the military definition of "gun" than does a semi-automatic.) 3D printing changes nothing - weapons have been easy to make since bronze was invented
To look at it another way, CNC had the exact same effect - someone with a $5,000 tool could make a more professional looking weapon. Before that, metal lathes made weapon fabrication easier. Same with a dozen other tools. Why did we not hear this fear mongering about home CNC machines, or lathes, or forges, for that matter? Because until the least few decades most people had the basic tools of self defense as a matter of course. Yeah, anyone could make a gun in 1950, or 1900, but why bother? Just buy one at Sears. What's changed is the sissification of the culture. The technology makes no difference. The difference is that today we have a bunch of wussy girlie men who've never so much as held a pistol, and are afraid of what they are unfamiliar with.
Your right to a handheld explosive-powered projectile launcher is not natural.
It is a right, but it does not come directly from being a human.
Sure it does. Human beings have been possessing the cutting edge weaponry of the day since the very first Homo sapiens picked up a rock and bashed in his neighbors head. Possession of weaponry is the quintessential natural law right. It can't even effectively be taken away in highly controlled environments, just ask the poor SOB who just got shanked in the prison shower.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Why did we not hear this fear mongering about home CNC machines,
Because they require skill to operate.
With more and more parts of the gun (and just about anything else) being available to download over the net, and less and less need for metal portions at all, anyone with the price of a printer and off the shelf software will be able to print and fit together just about anything. The price of 3D printers is slipping under the $1000 dollar mark, $2000 for a good enough quality one for the task at hand.
CNC machines aren't getting dramatically cheaper, or less complicated to run. 3D printers are.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. Even for guns. The idea that gun tracking is going to cut down on murders is folly.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Send me 10000 Bitcoins and I will have a look.
..."because 3D-printed guns aren't yet as durable as their metal counterparts, the ATF doesn't yet consider them as much of a concern." That and it would cost far more to print the gun part using the kind of printer technology that would render a reliable weapon, far more than the cost of the gun one would be looking to replicate. The kind of 3D printers that are required to make the kind of weapons that the ATF would take notice of are very expensive and generally not available to the general public or if they are no business would print the parts for fear of being sued to the poor house. I personally worry far more for our safety at the thought of not being able to have a weapon/s in my home. Criminals are just waiting for that day...They will be bringing a gun to a knife fight and know they have the upper hand. Good times for Jane and Joe citizen when that day comes.
As a regular reader and frequent poster, I almost always have moderator points (frequently 15 at a time) and do the "neighborly" thing of keeping all posts in full view to watch for moderator abuse, as slashdot requests. However, if posts like this continue I'll just go back to what I usually do (-1 hidden)
Can we please add a content filter for quick detection and (non-automatic) removal of these posts? Given that he frequently posts just the same crap over and over again, I think it should be pretty easy to set up a heuristic system that would allow an admin to easily spot and nuke these, followed by IP bans.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
" The difference is that today we have a bunch of wussy girlie men " - I agree 100% with your statement yet arrive at different conclusion: a bunch of paranoid people who need a gun to prop their self esteem.
What about my 3d-printed tobacco though?
I have seen no proposition of any non-metal material that could replace a barrel. The stress is too great.
If your only interested in crime or going postal you really don't care about long term reliability so long as it can get you through the day. Long term reliability is only a law abiding citizen would care about. So the ATF should really be very concerned indeed.
If it can get to the point that completely plastic Saturday night special can be made and dissolved with just a few common chemicals...
Sounds to me like they don't care about crime... only weapons that can personally hurt them in their body armor.
You still have to:
1) Own a 3D printer of sufficient quality to make a workable part.
2) Buy all the business parts of the gun. The barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, firing pin, buffer, gas tube, trigger and assembly, fire selector, hammer, etc, etc,.
3) Assemble said gun from scratch.
You CANNOT print a whole gun and will NEVER be able to unless we get metal 3D printers that can make high strength parts. An AR-15 barrel and chamber must survive peak forces of 63,000 PSI. 3D printers can't extrude materials that can take anything near that.
All people are printing now is the lower receiver, and maybe some of the ergonomics stuff like grips and hand guards. This shit is not intensive, nor expensive, to make.
The only notable thing about the lower for an AR-15 variant is that it is the serialized part and this legally the firearm. However that law could be changed, if needed, and then you'd be SOL.
This is in no way, shape, or form a script kidde operation. It is just making AR-15 lowers, something people have done forever. The only reason some geeks are obsessed with it is because they don't understand materials science and think that this means you can print a whole gun.
No, you cannot 3D print a gun. you can 3D print a receiver, but the ol "lock,breach and barrel" you can't.
so anything that comes out of a 3D printer won't kill someone. if you printed a gun-shaped thing you might bluff your way through a robbery, but then a good toy gun or bb gun such as they sold in my childhood would be just as good.
wake up when someone can print a barrel that can take 15,000 to 50,000 psi of pressure and thousands of degrees of heat for some tens of milliseconds. or can print a hammer and firing pin strong enough to dimple a metal primer. or a trigger and sear that could hold that hammer. ain't happening for a long time....
That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs. The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
Wow, anthrax that is 20% pure and nuclear bombs which fizzle scare me and guns which work 80% of the time should be of some concern to them.
Besides the metal 3D printer I've seen could spit out air-cooled, motor-driven chain guns! You could just buy or repurpose barrels as they aren't regulated at all. I bet guns made with that machine would be on their radar. Some one who could purchase a few of those, or even just one and some CNC machines could turn out many guns quickly.
It would be cool if in a US military armory you could print your gun and snap it together, and then just store the metal powder in different alloys and the ordinance, and maybe a nylon and a synthetic rubber printer for making pads for stocks, grips, casing. I've thought a fiberglass or carbon fiber 3D printer would be cool, if it was just heat activated resin applied in very thin strands.
ATF couldn't do shit even if they wanted to.
Ironically it will be the NRA that puts a stop to 3D guns - if everyone can print their own gun, the gun manufacturers will go out of business.
"we have not yet seen a consistently reliable firearm made with 3D printing"
If it can only fire a few shots before it breaks, that's still enough to kill a few people.
Not their safety, but the fact that 3d printers WILL be in every home one of these days, my guess is within 10 years, and kids will be able to print a weapon whenever they want to.
I am a Marine. I have no problem with responsible adults owning firearms. Bit I DO have a problem with moody teens or curious children being able to produce one whenever they want.
The 'Saturday Night Special' was the term used for extremely cheap handguns. My father has one that he bought when I was a kid. An extremely LOUD and inaccurate revolver that shoots .22 shorts. I believe it cost him around $8-10 and he bought it by mail order.
The point with Saturday Night Specials, and really the reason for the term, was that they were considered to be cheap fast and pretty near disposable guns.
I would think the ATF would be more concerned about lots of this type of weapon being out there.
"Because they require skill to operate."
Sorry, but no.
As someone pointed out above: once someone who does have skill creates the CNC code, any fairly unskilled person can load an ingot, fill the lube reservoir, and hit the "start" button.
You have perhaps the fallacious presumption that someone is watching, which, after having been on slashdot on/off for a long time, does not appear to be the case.
There has been the advent of goatse, GNNA, and many others in the sordid history of Slashdot. My advise: this too, will pass.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Like you I browse at -1 because sometimes worthy posts get an undeserved negative mod. What I think might work is that posts that get some larger number of negative mods should just be disappeared and if the post gets down modded enough to disappear the moderators should get their points back. What the number should be I'm not sure. I think at least 10 but a statistical analysis of moderating patterns might suggest a better number.
riverat1 posting AC because I have mod points to spend.
People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
Total bullshit. I've been the owner of an "assault weapon" for longer than a lot of Slashdotters have been alive. In the early days I bought my first assault weapon for less than what a half dozen magazines for the same rifle cost today. Back them I got magazines for less than 10% of what they cost today. When I would show up at the range with my fancy rifle most non-vets normally commented that they'd never seen one before and that it looked expensive to own. The funny thing is... it was an AK47. One of the cheapest reliable firearms to own and fire at the time. But the vast majority of people had no idea what it was. It wasn't until after Clinton went on his gun hunt that every kid on the street knew what one was an wanted one. Fuck, most shooters I knew at the time who know what an AK was weren't even aware it was legal to own one until they'd seen me with one. There was plenty of supply but there was next to no demand.
The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
I don't see what that has to do with anything in any fashion related to what we're talking about here. The truth of the matter is that most illegal drugs that are still used today (as in quantity) weren't restricted until about a century ago and were being used recreationally (and legally) right along side their medicinal use.
Cocaine 1905
Heroin 1914
Morphine 1914
Marijuana 1937
LSD 1966
Granted, LSD wasn't discovered until the 40s but still...
"That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns."
Hahaha. Bullshit. Every time the government has announced intentions to restrict guns, there has been a run on the gun stores. Just recently, in fact.
When Obama was first elected, certain kinds got downright scarce for a while, because demand was so high.
Yes, Virginia, threats to restrict guns DO increase gun sales. Not just a little, but dramatically.
Here's the problem...
Let's say I could make a gun in 30 seconds with any kind of 3D printing/rapid-prototype... I could in theory:
1. Fire off one round if I'm reasonably good at aiming, only takes one bullet for a self-inflicted wound, or to kill someone who isn't moving
2. If it's made of plastic, it will get past metal detectors and only a few rounds are needed to take down any transportation
3. who says you had to make a 3D gun that looks like a gun? Or even a knife.
4. It's untraceable since there's no way to figure out who made it... however those who own the 3D printing machines could be traced.
Like right now there's not really a way to make an entire gun that would reliably fire off a single round, but that's mostly because there's not yet demand for tested designs. It's all experimental.
They've printed some of the parts of a gun.
They still need barrels, and most importantly, firing mechanisms. The printed parts are currently still holding all of the 'metal bits' that make up the gun.
Besides, the ATF really wouldn't be able to do much about it, unless they where being sold..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
You have already pointed out there is a mechanism in place for you to apply the level of filter you are comfortable with. That should be enough. There are very good reasons why this is permitted.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Let's see, which is better for my use as a criminal
- A gun that will "last for generations" and keep a permanent record of the ammo fired from it in the form of bullet striations
- A gun that I can fire 30-60 times and then literally dispose of in a fire leaving zero provable trace for anyone to link me to it
Why on earth would a criminal want a gun that would "last for generations" as opposed to one that can be used and then destroyed?
No, I want guns because there are bad people who might try to hurt me or my loved ones or take our stuff. I don't care what they're armed with. Even if they all only had knives I'd still want a gun, because I don't have the desire to learn knife-fighting. Hell, if everybody else only had knives I would DEFINITELY want a gun.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
That's just wrong. When small handguns came out, they allowed women and men of inferior strength to defend themselves against big and strong attackers, and they were both viewed positively for that reason and widely purchased.
That is also wrong. The majority of illicit substances are, in fact, created as chemical variations of psychoactive substances. And there is a demand for these variations because the traditional drugs, most of which are no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, have been made illegal (see here).
The ATF decision was formulated on presumptions of ignorance.
You don't need receivers and metallic mechanical parts if you use electric ignition, just an electric trigger, a battery and some circuitry.
You don't need proper barrels if you can use thin standard tubing encased in a 3d printed plastic sleeve, both for reinforcing the barrel and for safety.
You don't need magazines if you can store several bullets in the barrel and make the barrels single use and swappable. Due to their flimsy construction, the barrels should be strictly one use only, having to swap barrels for a new burst.
A company called Metal Storm is already applying some of these concepts in the real world.
As for lack of precision due to the lack of rifling in the barrel... they'd still be great for urban guerrilla scenarios, and probably far more precise than UZI style weapons.
I don't think the ATF guys have thought this one thoroughly enough.
Like you, I also always browse at -1 and am getting really irritated at these posts. Still I don't agree that these posts should be removed as who knows where that might lead. A better solution would be to be more aggressive with using Read the rest of this comment... thing. Reduce the post to a couple of lines and it is easy to skim over and if anyone chooses they can read the whole post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The ATF is correct in their approach to this. There's a lot of pointless idiots running around in fear here over 3D printing. Or maybe they just want 3D printers banned because they don't have one... Just like those same idiots ran around over a decade ago saying color inkjet printers would lead to counterfeiting of currency. But that never really happened and by the time laser printers could do it, they started encoding tracking information in the printouts.
Here's how guns are really made... On the floor of a workshop in Pakistan... It's really quite an impressive video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-m8YP26AQE
Nothing complicated there was there?
3D printers can make stuff that is militarily controlled. I do know that, because I do that. Probably about half my inventions are determined by the Department of Defence to be controlled-items under ITAR USML/DSGL and I have to get the appropriate permits and licenses for what I do, but the stories around Slashdot sure promote a lot of FUD in the Slashdot community, which is probably a lot more to do with irrational fear of firearms that many people have than having any real basis in reality.
All that is likely to happen is that when real breakthroughs come in 3D printing over the next few years, the US government will end up intervening in the technology and retarding it based on the ridiculous fears that I see in the comments to this article. Meanwhile the Chinese already lead the world in 3D printer technology and the US will fall behind.
And that would be a shame if it came about. Because 3D printed guns really aren't likely to be an issue.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Can't we let the genie a bit further out of the bottle before we give the copyright lobby easy fodder for scaring people into making home 3D printing illegal?
If it's laser sintering of metal powder alone it's going to be full of holes like swiss cheese (even 98% density is hard to get) which I'd say is what the above poster meant about it blowing up in your face. There are turbines made from powdered metal but it's not a single sintering step, forging (ie. hitting or squeezing soft hot metal really hard) is done as well to get rid of all those holes.
So if you want a gun barrel from a 3D printer that works at least once you'll need a bit more gear than a laser sintering 3D printer.
the NRA is ostensibly about NRA members, but its obviously about the gun manufacturers
a gun you can print at home divides the agenda nicely and pits manufacturer against owner
thus also dividing the allegiances of the NRA
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We keep coming back to these stupid stories.
If you could print a perfect steel copy of the gun it would be totally legal as long as you are not offering it for sale.
Still nothing to see here.
I actually see "read the rest of this comment..." in the normal place on this post.
It's about 50/50 whether the post is displayed fully or not. I take this to mean more than one person is posting the APK challenge.
It could also mean /. is oddly inconsistent.
A better solution would be to be more aggressive with using Read the rest of this comment... thing.
If they can make the story summaries on the first place click-to-expand, they can do it for posts to. In fact, it kind of bugs me that "Read the rest of this comment" requires a page reload - they should just hide the way the do story summaries. They could probably even make the max length displayed a per-user configuration setting.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's a given, the only question remaining is whether it will be before or after someone is actually pissed enough to find out what this joker is hawking and send a DDoS to whatever server he's trying to promote?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Doesn't reload the page here, just get the "working" thing at the bottom of the page and then it expands. Probably be quicker if I wasn't on crappy dial-up (currently 16.8 connection) but still fairly quick.
Making the max length displayed a per-user configuration does sound good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The max length before "read the rest of the comment" is a per-user configuration setting and has been for several years. Also D2 (the Javascript comments interface introduced a few years ago now) made it not require a reload.
Doesn't reload the page here, just get the "working" thing at the bottom of the page and then it expands.
Ok, so not a total reload, but that part is loaded a second time. On the front page, the story summaries are all loaded when the page is loaded and the expansion just unhides what is already there - no waiting for a server round-trip (and it is a butt-slow round-trip even on a 100mbps fiber connection too).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The problem with ceramics is they are too hard, and thus too brittle. Steel works because it is strong, but flexible. It has give to it. You can actually see parts on a gun flex at various times when fired (the bolt on an AK-47 tends to flex a bit on closing). The metal can take the stress, bend a bit, and return to shape.
Advanced ceramics are much harder, but thus more brittle. They don't give, until you suddenly hit the failure point and they shatter.
You can see this with ceramic knives. They are usually Zirconium oxide. They are great as they don't mess with the flavour of some foods, as metal does, basically never need to be sharpened, are wash to wash and so on. So why then are they not the one and only choice for good chefs? Because they are brittle. They are great for slicing veggies and so on, but you carve a turkey with them and you risk breaking them. They will stand solid at a point where steel will bend, but they will break at a point where steel is still bending and will return to shape.
Hence it is not a material suited to gun barrels. I've heard chatter of people that think it is a neat idea, I've never seen anyone demonstrate it wouldn't fail catastrophically after one shot.
All this is beside the point though, 3D printers can no more work with ceramics than they can with metal at this point.
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in.
Or did their response mistakenly give us more information than they intended. From their response I'm led to believe that their primary concern isn't included in your list. I might be wrong, but I think they're at last smart enough to realize that untraceable, printed guns would be more likely to be used in these cases. So what does that tell us about their focus?
Uh. Kind-of. He was doing it to point out how "Mexican drug lords are buying their guns in US retail stores." His Secretary of State actually said this. And very few in the media, except FoxNews, asked the obvious question: Why would the Mexican drug lords buy semi-auto guns at US retail when the US government either sold them or authorized their sale at wholesale (in)directly via the Mexican military?
I'm not one for over-regulation but the statement by the ATF shows some alarming ignorance and head in the sand-edness
He's been doing this on and off since 2006.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
It is not illegal to make your own firearms. Where do you think gunsmiths come from ? There are certain rules and restrictions on quantity and sales, etc., It is already illegal for ex convicts to purchase firearms. Often, in spite of that, it is not illegal for them to own them in their own homes. Just, they can't purchase them. maybe some small part of this aspect might be something to look at. If you really want to piss off somebody, start printing your own drones... ;)
Yes, you're not a real man until you're holding a gun. *rolls eyes* Compensating for something else that makes a real man, are we?
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs.
No, but OP didn't say it did. He said it led to more dangerous drugs. That means it led to the use of more dangerous drugs. Prohibition skews the market in favour of drugs which are easier to smuggle and easier to make or obtain. Just the prohibition of alcohol to under 18s directly leads to that age-group trying more dangerous but easily available alternatives such as solvents. Any time you see a decline in one drug you'll see a corresponding rise in another, and the other is likely to be more dangerous than the first.
In other news someone with a drill press, a lathe can also make a firearm... If you make an investment you can hit print and your 6 axis CNC milling machine will print out a fully metal receiver for your firearm.
Plants, now printers. Shit.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
You are hilariously wrong.
I own and run a CNC mill. It does not have an "ingot" loading slot.
I would NEVER run someone elses code on my machine. G-code is machine-specific, more so than assembly for a computer. I would not even run g-code that was produced for the SAME MODEL OF MACHINE - there are too many other (physical) variables.
You sound like a typical arrogant computer nerd, who thinks that because he understands programming, he understands CNC. You don't. You don't even know what fixturing IS, let alone which of the many ways to do it successfully would be appropriate for a given operation. What kind of tool will you use? What material? What feed and speed? What are you going to fill the "lube reservoir" with - cause you know, what works for one metal may not work so well with another? But I'm sure you've got all that figured out, cause you 3d-printed something that one time.
My background is computer programming. Having the humility to know that I don't understand everything in the world by proxy is what keeps me making parts, instead of crashing my mill. I must admit though, I love reading these gun-printing threads, every single time they come back up.
I see this same conversation is repeated a few comments above :)
Pshaw. Firearms are for pussies!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
...when I thought nothing good could be said about any government agency at this point in time, I'll have to give the ATF credit on this one. They actually freakin' THOUGHT about something instead of bending to the freak-out junkies. OMG. What a concept!
:-)
There is no law against making your own gun for your own personal use. It is 100% legal to make your own with a 3D printer.
But when the printed weapon can be smoked like a cigarette and has a cupholder for your whiskey, it's GAME ON!!
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs. The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
Have you ever studied Prohibition? Here's a Wikipedia link to make it easy for you to read up on how restricting access and use of things works:
Prohibition in the U.S.
They can't be worrying about 3D printing of firearms. They're too busy smuggling weapons to the drug cartels and fantasizing about the next group of women and children they can tear-gas and burn alive.
The true issue is missed here. The only part on an ar-15 that is regulated or background checked is the lower housing. It can be easily made with open source drawings online (these are more than sufficient enough to use for regular shooting, more than 500 rds, Frontier arms makes poly plastic lowers and sells them) and the person making the ar-15 could easily get a full upper (barrel, upper reciever, bolt, the main mechanics, wear and tear) directly shipped to their door without a background check. This ultimately could be a no background check gun that you could make for less than $550. The 3D printed lower will hold up for more than 500 rds if not a few years or so. It is possible
You're not a real man if you're afraid of holding a gun. I'll admit that fewer people are exposed to guns because most people live in cities and have no use for them. Most of these people don't have a use for a woodcutting ax, either, but you'd admit it's a bit sissy to be afraid of one.
That doesn't address my comment on the nature of the "demand".
There's a demand for substances, because people like to get "high";
There's a demand for guns, because people are afraid of other people with guns.
Disarm everyone, and you stem the demand. The problem is when each side tries to out-arm the other, and you just end up with a big lethal mess with everyone's finger on the trigger (literally).
The belief that possessing a firearm makes you safer is a fallacy.
For comparison, the homicide rate per capita is 5x higher in the US than in the UK. (source, UN)
If I were to have a confrontation with somebody, my chances would be far better than if we were faced with an "I'll shoot you before you shoot me" situation.
American Journal of Public Health:
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
(source)
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal.
If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.
But there are a bunch of people talking out their ass as they haven't a fucking clue about the first things about firearms. plastic printed guns are the NON STRESS parts, lower on a AR-15 the grips ect. the internals all need to be made of steel, and assembled properly (even if you could print them all together, an AR-15 is complex on the inside with many small springs) Laser sintering, the parts are going to be porous and need to be filled in, and then heat treated with a forge not your every day oven (unless yours can get to 1300 degree's+). the barrel needs to be of sufficient strength not to explode during the first round. (ie stand up to pressures from 35,000 psi (for a 9mm handgun round) to 55,000 psi + for rifle rounds. the bolt and firing pin need to be stronger so they don't fly back into your face. Laser sintering is used for some things these days like making door handles, but after they are made they are fragile VERY fragile. they need to have bronze or other metal added to fill in the gaps and hold it together properly. none of this is going to work for a little "script kiddie" at home. There is a element of skill involved with firearms manufacture, you don't just plonk them together. they need fitting and adjusting to work correctly. there are very few action parts of a firearm that are "drop in" most need fitting and adjusting to work correctly. Sorry for anything Rude, but all i see is Fear mongering from people who don't know the internal workings of a firearm from a hole in the wall. i would expect better from people on a site like this. i am not a professional computer programmer, or network engineer, i don't presume to tell you any Shlub can do you your job just as good as you. Don't presume to tell me that any shlub with a computer can do my job as a gunsmith as good or better than me. Do some research first, EDUCATE yourself on these things. Go to a firearms Forum. Good ones that i am a member of are Thehighroad.org, and Canadiangunnutz.com We arent a bunch of inbred rednecks like people would like you to think, most of us hold down very hard jobs (some of the same jobs you yourselves have)
I hear ya.
The counterbalance is that the UK is NOT the same as the US. They are in different places in the world and have different histories.
I personally know, and know people that know others who like to shoot guns at targets for practice just for the hell of it; they do not own and shoot because they feel the need for protection. That comes later, *if* needed. Those who are smart know that if you are to shoot someone, they must act in a manner to make you feel threat to your life first. If you aren't a licensed concealed carrier, you're pretty much limited to your home in most states. If you are to be justified in shooting someone, they must come in to your home and make you feel threatened for your life OR shoot at you first. Since this legal state is a stupid one, people may tend to overreact. When I say that, I refer to the lack of rights to use a gun on someone who you know to have one and simply feel threatened by them. If that right existed, people would feel a little less confident in acting out with a gun. Lacking that right, people feel a bit more grandiose, in that they are trying to *find a legally valid reason* in their heads to use their guns on others when they feel threatened with no recourse other than "waiting for the cops to show up". I'm sure the person who is approaching you and threatening you isn't going to say, "Oh, of course. I'll wait for the police to show up before I act out on your any further."
Moving on...
If you were to try and take the guns away from those who own them, the counter-response would be astronomical. Here in the good ol' US, we're used to freedom and rights. That's pretty much what it was founded on, eh? If you try to remove freedom or rights, people counter with an increased desire to HAVE said freedom/rights and to ACT to maintain them or regain them. You can't with 100% certainty say that the minds of those in the UK are the same as the US or say that the statistical data is relevant in an apples-apples sense.
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
Okay, another quote from the article:
So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*. Statistics do not account for hidden mental states. If they did, we would be able to read the mind by now. All they have to work with are the outcomes of the acts (in written legal cases) which may or may not have a complete set of information of the causes and effects of the individual person. In fact, they can never have a COMPLETE set of information; hell, if they did, we wouldn't really have much to talk about in this situation, would we?
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal.
If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.
I'd like to say what you're bringing up here is a good point, but it's lacking the mention of UK people trying to and succeeding in obtaining guns, as well.
I will a
Ok, so lets say that hypothetically you can print all the parts for a gun. Who is gonna put the damn thing together for you? From what I gather gunsmithing is not something just anyone can do in there basement. You think the gunsmith down the road is gonna do it for you?! Hell no, he will lose his licence for making a gun with no serials on it and then he's out of a job. Are you gonna go to school and learn to do it yourself - then you might as well build a REAL gun with no serials on it
"You are hilariously wrong. I own and run a CNC mill. It does not have an "ingot" loading slot."
I did not say it did. Nevertheless, it does not take a genius to mount a block of metal in one, ready to be machined.
"G-code is machine-specific, more so than assembly for a computer. I would not even run g-code that was produced for the SAME MODEL OF MACHINE - there are too many other (physical) variables."
It's done all the time. The fact that you aren't confident doing it doesn't mean others are as reluctant.
There are lots of manufacturing companies all over the place that do automated CNC. I used to work in one. So you can say I sound like an arrogant computer nerd all you like, but to me it sounds like you are an arrogant CNC operator with delusions of grandeur. Belong to a union, do you?
This is really gonna rile up the shit-disturbers at Defense Distributed. I bet their next video will have a crowd of mannequins for targets.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"The ATF doesn't yet consider them as much of a concern."
Translation: There is literally nothing they can do about it.
This was modded as a troll? You're kidding me! Scary really. I mostly like Obama, but there are some Kool Aid Kidz who won't accept any criticism, even when he gives guns to Mexican drug dealers. And this is why Slashdot needs to identify who mods down posts.
Wow, props for the well addressed, calm response. It deserves a reply.
There were a number of areas I didn't make reference to purely for the sake of being brief, but I'll raise them now.
I did consider the issue of sports, however that can easily be tidied up with tighter restrictions on equipment. As is the case in many (most?) other countries, the equipment isn't owned by individuals, but "leased" from the ranges. Ammo is counted in & out, so it can't go "missing".
As for your burglary comment, I again point out that in an unarmed state it's highly unlikely that the intruder would have a gun themselves. This would be due to a) lack of availability & b) being caught in possession of a firearm can turn a 6 month sentence into a 40 year sentence.
I can possibly empathise with people not wanting to give up their arms once they've already got them. a) for sentimentality, b) because the non law abiding citizens who have now got hold of guns, won't mind breaking the law to keep them. This leaves the law abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage.
This isn't an argument *not* to disarm the populace, just that it would need to be done carefully.
You can probably draw a very similar analogy with nuclear proliferation & MAD - no one wants to make themselves vulnerable by backing down first, but everyone agrees it's a counter-productive situation that needs to be resolved. In fact it's almost exactly like MAD, except with nations instead of individuals.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fully fledged, card holding civil libertarian & I'm not averse to arguing controversially strong views in support of our civil rights. However, I don't think every man, woman & child should have the natural right to possess equipment whose sole design & purpose is to kill other people.
I the same light, I also don't have problems with the government restricting the public's access to lethal chemicals & radioactive compounds (which have legitimate scientific use).
Proceeding onto the research & article...
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*.
Unless the PA is a total anomaly which bears no similarities to other states, I think it's fair to draw inferences - and 667 cases isn't a bad sample size. At no point did the study overstate the certainty of its conclusions.
As for the other factors you mention, are they relevant? The aim of the study was simple: Will being armed make you safer?
Yes, there are still gun related crimes in the UK, that's unavoidable. However, incidents tend to be limited to the rare gang shootings on a couple of infamous council estates. Armed crimes (lethal or not) outside of this tiny subset are infrequent enough that it'll be covered in the national news for days.
The Duggan case you refer to was a good example of this. The alleged gang member was in mere possession of a gun, having only just received it & the police were all over him.
Our homicide by firearm rate is 0.1/100,000 (40/yr). Taking into account that most incidents are within the small communities mentioned above, I think that shines quite well on us as a whole.
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
ok, I know I am going to regret it, but I have seen this post almost every article. Who the FUCK is APK and why should I give a fuck
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
I have to cut to the last point to state that there isn't going to be an unarmed United States without another civil war. If guns are scarce and impossible to find, people will find other methods that are potentially (but not certainly) less accurate and/or more disgusting than guns to kill.
If the politicians want to push their limits to start another civil war, well, perhaps they'll "stimulate the economy" by doing so. </sarcasm>