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.
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
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?
Well, there's still the matter of the metal barrel, the metal firing pin, the metal springs. The only thing so far that has been 3D printed is a plastic frame. That is why the ATF is not concerned at the moment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.
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
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.
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?