Slashdot Mirror
3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon
colinneagle writes "A 3D-printed gun capable of firing multiple rounds may be unveiled soon. Cody Wilson, the 25-year-old founder and director of nonprofit organization Defense Distributed, recently told Mashable that the end product of Wiki Weapon, the initiative to create an operational 3D-printed gun, may soon be ready to unveil to the public. In a March interview with CNN, Wilson said he hoped to have a printable gun ready by the end of April, so his most recent comments suggest that he may fulfill that promise. While Wilson was sparse with details, he did tell Mashable that the prototype would be a handgun consisting of 12 parts made out of ABS+ thermoplastic, which is known for its durability and is commonly used in industrial settings. The firing pin would be the only steel component of the 3D-printed gun, which will be able to withstand a few shots before melting or breaking. Wilson reportedly anticipates making an official announcement soon."
If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).
To 3D print the cartridges.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
get a 3D printed silencer to go with it?
I'm waiting for 3D-printed House Representatives. One more dimension than the present models.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Increasing supply does not necessarily increase demand. It depends whether the good has a fixed demand (is price inelastic). Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.
One quick Google search later:
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
No, making guns for sale requires you have a license. Making guns for personal use only requires no licenses at all, as long as they fall under ATF guidelines for weapons that don't need to be registered with the ATF (no assault rifles or SBRs).
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Have fun finding ammo right now...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Except I don't think murder is as price-inelastic as you think. Only a small fraction of gun murders in the US are in, e.g., carefully planned heists by criminal masterminds who will acquire guns regardless of cost for a pre-planned murder. Gun deaths overwhelmingly come from heat-of-the-moment domestic disputes, drug-addled petty criminals, super-depressed suicide victims, etc.: folks not utilizing near-unlimited resources and careful long-term planning skills. If a (cheap, ubiquitously available) gun is on hand at the minute of bad decision making, it gets used; otherwise not.
I'm interested to see the reaction from the pro-gun groups and lobbies who are supported by major manufactures. Will they still be so keen for everyone to own a gun when those guns aren't being bought from their interest groups? Or will it become like the tobacco industry where only "approved manufacturers" (ie. the current ones) are allowed to design, manufacture and sell guns.
How is this, in any sense of a safe, sane, rational world; a good thing?
I love building, creating, discovering. The first thing that the ability to self-produce a meaningful firearm, should produce though is a limitation on the right to do so.
No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.
I watched an interview with Cody recently.
While the guy is a little nuts (ok, maybe more than a little) he does actually have a point. Gun control in the age of 3d printing is going to be virtually impossible. In the next decade we'll move from plastics to metals and from niche to mainstream for 3d printing, any 15 yr old with an internet connection and a (no doubt cheap) home printer will then only need to buy bullets to arm themselves to the teeth.
Politics are always behind the curve, it would be nice for a change to see any of them try to tackle inevitable changes to our civilization before they become an issue. FYI I'm Australian and lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.
- accompanied by the words "Give your fucking wallet..."
The death penalty is typically an externality not factored into the cost of killing. Few murderers think ahead so much; or, if they do, feel certain they won't get caught (so severity of punishment, life imprisonment or death penalty, doesn't matter when mentally multiplied by a 0% estimate of getting caught). Whether they can get a gun or a bunch of booze for $20 *right now* does factor into the economic choices they make (and if the gun is $500, the booze probably wins). Now, when you increase the chances of getting caught (by increasing resources for investigation/enforcement), this has been shown to impact crime rates: increase the number of friends-of-friends that people hear about getting locked away for life, and folks' subconscious economic calculations start factoring in "I might get caught" with significantly higher weight.
But is this really the only use for a 3D printer?
Please no more eiffel tower pics either. k thx bye ...
...Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.
Like hell it's inelastic. You may wish to /believe/ it's inelastic, and "everyone" you like and talk to at bars and hang out with may repeat this back to you as if it's irrefutable fact, but I guarantee you that having a conveniently lethal murder instrument helps quite a bit. We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.
And we know that guns are even more commonly used for suicide; suicide is NOT inelastic to supply of convenient suicide methods, and we know this because the suicide rate in England went down dramatically when they got rid of town gas (i.e. partially burned coal containing high levels of carbon monoxide used as fuel in ovens and such, a very convenient suicide method). Having such an enormous glut of legal guns in our country also means the black market also becomes flooded with guns.
Yes, there are some people who are hell-bent on killing and will attempt some way to do it, but a heck of a lot of people kill others in the heat of the moment or at least would be far less effective at it if they didn't have such an efficient killing instrument handy. It doesn't take a ton of foresight or coordination with others to shoot and kill a bunch of people with a gun. To do the same with another weapon, like a bomb, is actually a heck of a lot harder, as Boston vs Newtown shows. Or the recent Chicago five-fatality shooting spree (that sort of thing is pretty common... fatal shootings occur multiple times a week in Chicago).
In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do. A gun being present generally only changes the cause of death. This is evidenced by the fact that in Britain and Australia gun bans have had no effect on either suicide or homicide rates when isolated against already prevailing national crime rates and trends. You are also incorrect about the nature of homicide in the US. 70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
I should be clear, I am not a "gun rights" advocate, but from an economics perspective it is rather obvious that murder is price inelastic. The vast majority of murders are infact crime related. The remander are largely crimes of passion for which any serviceable weapon can and will do (suicide falls under this as well).
"prototype would be a handgun consisting of 12 parts made out of ABS+ thermoplastic, which is known for its durability and is commonly used in industrial settings."
yea but its not thin slivers of plastic that happened to surface bond to a cooling surface, yea it seems strong to your hand, but not to any mechanical force, its actually quite brittle
but yay 3d printing with weedeater string!
I don't think price is what keeps people from owning guns. It's rather that they are risk-averse to accidents, or maybe just think they're icky, or don't want legal problems from an unregistered gun. Cheaper and more available won't change most of this. You can already buy a crappy pistol for under $200. This is not a huge problem even for the relatively poor.
Also, 3d-printing is not a replicator. You still have quite a bit of work assembling it (and buying ammo), which is probably hard to do if you're in a homicidal rage.
Suicides would probably increase, since they are 1) planned, 2) planned mostly by people who are depressed enough to be put off by substantial challenges. I would guess homicides wouldn't increase much.
Make the ability to protect yourself cheaper, easier and more available, and more people get protected.
"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed. You simply shift from people losing their wallets to muggers, to engaging in gun fights with muggers. You also teach the muggers to shoot first and rob the body later.
Not sure why you want rapists and other criminals to have easier access to victims?
The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members (who already have plenty of "access" to the victims), not some scary looking dude running out from a dark alley shouting "I'm gonna rape you!". And when your pushy creep boyfriend learns you keep a gun in your purse for self-defense, it just means he'll know an easy place to snag a gun before forcing himself on you.
There's a reason why MLK and his supporters had a lot of weapons around.
Yeah, that worked out real well for protecting MLK. And the civil rights activists who leaned more towards stockpiling weapons than peaceful protests generally ended up assassinated by the FBI, not winning civil rights victories.
In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do.
Any weapon will inflict injury. Guns make it especially easy to rapidly inflict death (point and click!), even for people who would not be mentally prepared to keep hacking away with a knife once the blood starts spurting, or would be restrained by others around.
70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
And the availability of guns makes murder easier and more efficient, even in gang violence situations. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than a gun --- no quick drive-by pot-shots at kids wearing the wrong colors, you've got to stay around and pummel until the target's buddies show up with their own weapons.
I had no idea 3D printers were that loud.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Well, if murderers don't think ahead much, then a 3d printed gun will definitely not be an issue.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a 3d printer to make /anything/ work.
This man is single-handedly ruining 3D printing for EVERYONE, just because he's a gun nut obsessed with firearms. He's pushing into a gray area and setting a very early precedent that will impact the availability of 3D printing for the rest of America.
Cody Wilson is just what you'd expect from a 25-year old, gun nut, pothead, government conspiracist. He's afraid of having his weapons taken away, he's afraid of having his weed taken away, and he's afraid of his rights being taken away. His entire life is ruled by fear. So how does Cody respond? He perverts a revolutionary technology to make _more_ fucking weapons with them in violation of the law.
Fuck Cody. This is why scientists and engineers fucking hate people that take what they pour their lives into and deform for their own fucked up needs. When the 3D printer was invented people envisioned a technology that could help, that could make development rapid, that would improve our lives. Now Mr. Wilson has ruined all that and made it a tool to create weapons.
Cody Wilson is a fucking asshole.
Except banning guns in two cultures very similar to ours has had no effect on either of those from an empirical perspective. You are basically plato reasoning about the five elements right now. No matter how well you construct your thought process the empirical, statistical evidence disagrees with your result. I have linked you to the associated articles on the effects of the gun ban in Australia, please take the time to read them.
"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed.
Since they would in turn be killing other people, you are in fact reducing the overall number of people killed.
Not sure why you want more people dead?
The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members
And that makes it less useful to stop them with a gun because....
Yeah, that worked out real well for protecting MLK.
It did for his goal, which is what mattered. The civil rights movement wasn't about a man, it was about people - many people - all of whom needed protection from very real threats.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You'll recall, or perhaps not, from your economics course that price is function of both supply and demand. The supply curve can shift right independent of the demand curve which implies a decreased price at every point along the supply curve, as when the price of inputs decreases or the productivity of their outputs increases, without necessarily increasing the "demand for murder", as you chose to put it. Ask yourself, who commits most of the violent gun crimes in America? Is it the law abiding rural gun owners with their cabinets full of rifles, shotguns and handguns or is it the poor urban criminals who are holding up liquor stores and robbing their fellow citizens with "born to lose" tattoos scrawled across their chests? If you believe that increasing the price of guns will reduce violent gun crimes then let's go ahead and try that. If a few less poor urban dwellers end up armed with cheap Saturday night specials, I won't complain. After all, they're the ones committing the crimes.
Doesn't matter...he's got the license, and is likely going to sell them.
drug-addled petty criminals
I really, really, really want to see stats on how many gun murders are associated with drugs. I expect that upward of 95% are. If we would just end the war on drugs, we'd stop nearly half of all gun deaths. The other half being suicide.
But the "right" doesn't want to admit the war on drugs is killing people (and they don't really care since most of them are poor with no one to speak for them) and the "left" doesn't want to admit that ending the war on drugs would substantially reduce gun violence because that would weaken any argument for outlawing guns on their own merits.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's because it's a flamebait topic that's more likely to get more views and angry comments (and therefore views).
ZERO massacres since 1996.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
It can only fire "a few shots" before needing repair, and the muzzle velocity is probably low enough that even those are unlikely to be deadly. If a nutcase in my neighborhood was getting a gun, I'd want him to get this one.
Stricter control on real guns, and 3D-printing for the masses seem to be a good way forward.
Why do 3/4 of the 3D printing articles here focus on guns? Guns are nice and all ...
But is this really the only use for a 3D printer?
Please no more eiffel tower pics either. k thx bye ...
the most present use I've had for mine has been printing ass vases and some joining pieces for decorative furniture.
but the reason why there's so many 3d printed gun articles about this one guy is two fold, first the media "journalists" don't know shit about history(about how people used to fuel a resistance with bike shop built guns and gangs used to use home built zip guns in fifties) and who think that their readers are different than the readers of the 423432 other news sources.. so they think a cool tech + scandalous use makes for a good story, and cody is just happy to throw fuel to that fire(last I checked he operated on donations).
there's probably some catch to this design too. an all abs+ printed (minus firing pin) gun sounds just too stupid to be true, why not use pipe as a barrel? why not at least enforce the receiver portion with metal?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
And we know that guns are even more commonly used for suicide; suicide is NOT inelastic to supply of convenient suicide methods, and we know this because the suicide rate in England went down dramatically when they got rid of town gas (i.e. partially burned coal containing high levels of carbon monoxide used as fuel in ovens and such, a very convenient suicide method).
Prevent suicides by making it unaffordable for people to conveniently kill themselves. Now that is a real winner for society. We can take solace in our belief that we have done all that we can to prevent suicides and we can avoid all those unconformable discussions about the role that mental illness and social injustice play in people that act against their most basic instinct.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
I don't think the argument has ever been that less people will die if more responsible citizens have guns. Rather, I think the argument is that there will be less defenseless victims for the uncontrolled criminal savages to prey upon.
Firearms can be an equalizer which enable ordinary people to defend themselves from thieves, thugs, and tyrants alike.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I initially thought you were talking about gun shows when you said "ZERO massacres". Then I saw that you'd qualified that with a year, so you weren't talking about gun shows.
Funny how in all those gun shows full of guns and people who love guns, there's never a mass shooting. It's almost as though it's not possible for an individual to successfully massacre large groups of heavily armed individuals.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do. A gun being present generally only changes the cause of death.
If the party doesn't have access to a gun, there may well be no "crime of passion". It's really a lot harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than it is to squeeze a trigger. You may well stop at some point short of completion and say, "shit, I didn't mean to do that".
This is evidenced by the fact that in Britain and Australia gun bans have had no effect on either suicide or homicide rates when isolated against already prevailing national crime rates and trends.
From that article, "cut firearm suicides by 74%... no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise". Other studies found no effect or were inconclusive. So I don't think you can say it is "evidenced".
You are also incorrect about the nature of homicide in the US. 70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
How about "deaths by firearm"? What percentage of those have criminal records? Indeed, note that the accused perp of the Boston Marathon killings had no criminal record. But if it is true, it blows a hole in the argument that people need guns to protect themselves. At least, if they're not in gangs.
I should be clear, I am not a "gun rights" advocate, but from an economics perspective it is rather obvious that murder is price inelastic. The vast majority of murders are infact crime related. The remander are largely crimes of passion for which any serviceable weapon can and will do (suicide falls under this as well).
I'm trying to think of some category of murder that's not "crime-related", including crimes of passion. Nope, I'm drawing a blank, unless you're only talking about suicide (which I don't count as murder)..
Hardly a valid criticism of my post.
You know, I can't solve all the problems in the world in a single post. Of course socioeconomic factors are huge, but it's possible to, you know, look at an issue and try to evaluate it critically without throwing up one's hands and saying, "welp, since this is only part of the problem, it's obviously not worth anyone's time..."
ANY single factor you try to adjust or optimize will be incremental. It takes a bunch of things working together to solve this problem of murder in this country. You're not helping any by criticizing a valid observation just because it isn't all-encompassing.
What about countries where firearms are illegal or strictly controlled? Great, now our sundry criminals will be able to get guns made to order. Way to go with extreme irresponsibility. Hope you can live with the blood on your hands.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Setting off a cartridge is a bit like touching a blowtorch to the barrel.
Everyone I've talked to with gunsmithing or general materials engineering knowledge thinks an ABS barrel is not worth trying.
The problem with outliers is that you can't make any conclusive evidence based on a single data point, especially when it's so out of the line. So, yes, you look for connection - by looking at other data sets where the link between the factors you are interested should show up if it exists. That's why I pointed at UK and Australia for my evidence. The fact that no connection can be seen there seems to indicate that either those factors aren't really related (and therefore you should look at other differences for an explanation), or else there is some third factor that masks the difference. But in the absence of evidence for the latter, the simpler explanation should be preferred.
Unless the charge is very small it's a handheld plastic grenade that just happens to be shaped like a gun - ABS is very brittle.
That's only telling half the story. In New Zealand, one has to have a gun license before one can get it gun. This is quite a tedious process, and involves making sure the person is psychologically stable, wants the gun for what they say they want it for, and that they have a safe place to keep it in.
Buying a gun to kill someone with would take a very long time, a lot of effort, and then the chances of getting caught are very high.
The study is biased, and is missing out the fact that NZ has very strict regulation, which has almost certainly had an effect.
I know what I'm thinking. "Did I fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is plastic gun, and if it backfires it will likely blow my head clean off, I've got to ask myself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do I, moron?
I want a 3D printing gun. *pow* Hoberman sphere! *pow* Strandbeest! *pow* 3D printing gun!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Ah ... classic rules of media 101. I suppose eyeballs count for something --- err actually everything --- in an advertising supported site.
Lesson learned, mystery solved.
first the media "journalists" don't know shit about history(about how people used to fuel a resistance with bike shop built guns and gangs used to use home built zip guns in fifties) and who think that their readers are different than the readers of the 423432 other news sources..
Yes, "journalists" don't know anything about history, but history is constantly circling the drain. Everyone must perpetually remind each other of small pieces of history to keep the working body of knowledge alive. Case in point, I wasn't aware of what you posted --- how could I be? Too much history. But what negates this an open and receptive mind. Often "journalists" are pea-pod people --- surrounded by like-minded undiverse opinions.
You must be new here...
Guns are enabling rape.
In the general case the presence of guns in the house will, on average, increase the likelihood that a criminal will have a gun too. In my country, where households don't generally have guns and therefore robbers do not either, a home invasion can be effectively halted by turning on a light. The robber typically will flee the scene - they are, after all, after a DVD player or something easily liftable to sell down the pub and make a quick buck. Who needs the grief of being seen or potentially apprehended? Why risk the far bigger sentence associated with armed robbery?
Whereas if it were our habit to have guns then criminals would carry guns too, and every break in becomes a deadly confrontation. Someone will most likely be shot and killed - most likely the householder, and sometimes the criminal, who is also someones son or daughter and not really deserving of death merely because they wanted to lift my DVD player. In my case, I'm not going to kill myself or any other person for the sake of a DVD player or TV - mine are insured and I'm not a psychopath. A persons life is worth more than all my material possessions, notwithstanding whether they break the law or not.
That would be quick on the draw then.
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
Because a significant portion of the would be "nerds" suffer from small penis syndrome and feel the need to rant on about their guns? Mod me flamebait all you want, just stick to Linux and talk less about how essential "protecting yourself" is. (Not you personally Trollston).
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Yes, all true. Perhaps though the US has a different set of social issues, or maybe the same set of social issues as the UK but with increased intensity (e.g. US gang organisation and violence is in a different league to the UK's, social inequality is greater etc.) So removing guns from the UK doesn't make much difference to the murder rate but in the US, due to the more heated social problems, removing guns would make a difference?
Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted.
And when you click the reference link it's dead?? Wow, that's some pretty great evidence there.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Funny how there's never a massacre at a balloon factory as well, as though balloons somehow deter people from mass shootings. However I do seem to remember someone shooting themselves at a gun show recently, I assume from this that gun shows attract stupid people. More conclusions at 11.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
If you count alcohol as a drug and accept that from then on that 95% are "drug addled" quite a lot of the time, then yes.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Obvious left-wing nutjob that doesn't understand economics ranting about others not believing in it.
You mention supply and demand. Yes, market theory says that if the demand for murder goes up, then the cost will increase and then the number of people willing to do it for higher will increase (that is the supply) then the cost will come back down and equilibrium will be reached. If the demand then goes back down, then so will the price and then fewer people will decide it is worth doing.
Your example makes the claim that more houses will be built just because Stanley makes more hammers and more people buy them.
To address your other stupid comment... Could you enlighten us as to how murder by something other than a gun is acceptable? Could you also name one single person who claims that using a gun to commit murder is acceptable other than those who have committed murder with them?
As the police officer who led my concealed carry class said, the criminals are carrying guns. When he first went undercover ~20 years ago, he didn't carry because he didn't want to be recognized as a police officer because he was carrying. Concealed carry was not allowed with or without a permit in our state back then. He took him less than a week to realize that not carrying would have marked him as a law-abiding citizen so he started carrying to fit in with the criminals he was interacting with.
You don't want to kill someone that breaks into your house when you are there? Fine. Don't. That is your right. As for me and mine... If htey break in while we are home, they are not going to be satisfied with just walking out with your stuff. Statistics show that home invasions almost always end up with somebody dead or seriously injured. The only question is does the victim get to be a victim twice or once?
Then he doesn't understand the law at all. You can make your own original design and build it so long as you aren't selling it.
You mad
I don't believe 3D printers would ever be banned, based on the principle of technology we're using every day.
The Internet is an information super highway for any illegal activity imaginable, ranging widely between the sale of drugs, human trafficking, contract killings and child pornography to international terrorism. Banning the Internet would only cause people to get creative elsewhere, which would be impossible to control. Same with 3D printers.
I expect that governments would much prefer to watch certain flagged webspaces where they know people can obtain dangerous blueprints for their printers, or require users to register their printers at the time of purchase.
Maybe it's just me, but as someone without a 3D printer I somehow doubt that a almost completely plastic 3D printed gun is cheaper than say a $50 handgun from the pawnshop...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Do you realize that Bob Beckel is a very big supporter of Obama. He goes against nearly every other person on Fox News so maybe he had a point other than "ban muslims because they are muslim." His point seemed to be that we need to stop letting them come over until we have a better way of knowing what they are doing when they travel back and forth like those two did. (one of them anyway).
I seem to remember be very disgusted at the site of a bunch of Brits partying it up when a former Prime Minister of theirs died a few weeks ago. Having a good ol' time they were. Almost like the munhckins in the Wizard of Oz they were.
As for no cheering after Holmes was caught in Denver. He was caught immediately and didn't shut the city down so there wasn't quite the same sense of relief. Some of my circle of acquaintances were disappointed that he wasn't just killed but he surrendered to quickly. Another difference is that the police were actually on scene enforcing crowd control and seemingly also enforcing the weapons ban at the theater. They sort of failed that one. Oh yeah, the other thing. He wasn't a foreigner committing an act or war against the country. (yes. the Tarnaevs were naturalized citizens but it didn't take and they reverted back.)
Same for Lanza except the police already being there.
As for the giving blood being a different America... are you certain that it was two different groups with no overlap? You are probably very mistaken in that belief.
You are incorrect about Australia's statistics. The result of the gun ban is disputed, but it's generally accepted that the ban led to a large decrease in suicides, and a smaller but still statistically significant decrease in homicides. We also haven't had a single spree shooting since the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms, whereas we had 13 spree shootings (four fatalities or more) in the 18 years before the ban.
As for gang violence, gang violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all homicides in 2008.
Oh, and you're also incorrect about suicide.
you wrote:
>Maybe if it uses special ammo (primer + bb pellet or such)
That's how the original .22 rimfire (now called the ``Short'') was created. Since then it's been switched over to a smaller quantity of primer and a light charge of powder, since powder is less expensive than primer.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Excellent straw man. Since no pro-gun advocate believes or has said that about the marathon, why not just turn to the anti-gun propaganda machine to put words in the other sides' mouths?
Seems like a good argument technique. If you are an idiot.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Let me know if they make "mini" printed Abrams battle tank prototype. I would love to give that to my daughter!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
What would be nice would be if the NRA came down on these people. Really, the NRA represents the gun-making and gun-selling industry. It's in their interest to prevent everybody from being able to make guns for basically free, with the ease with which they might toast a pop-tart.
Here's a valuable contribution the NRA could be making to society. They should lobby, lobby, lobby that Cody and "Defense Distributed" are violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Seriously - "keep and bear arms". Says nothing about "making arms" or "printing arms" or "creating arms".
Except most gun shot wounds aren't to the heat where death is almost certain. Most are center of mass where there is a good chance of surviving. One of my friends is a trauma nurse at a major hospital here and mentioned that the worst injuries she has ever seen are blunt force impact injuries from hammers, mauls, clubs, pipes, etc. The do a lot of tissue damage, lots of internal bleeding, broken bones and if it was a claw hammer (very common) possibly puncture wounds on top of it. Next up are knife wounds as they can be very deep and puncture or slice multiple organs and bleed a lot. Finally there are gun shot wounds, which affect a small area and are comparatively easy to clean up as there is rarely much damage outside of the wound channel which is a small hole. Now granted most gun shot wounds are from hand guns, most being .22lr, and not from something like a intermediate or high powered rifle, shotgun (slugs, flechettes, or buckshot) or even large frame handgun which would be much more devastating and a real bitch to clean up.
Time to offend someone
You do realize that Chicago is disarmed right?
Disarmament doesn't work. It only increases crime rates.
There's lots of people with guns in police stations. Why no shootings there? Oh, police are "special", I guess. Ok, well what about all these evil, gun toting assholes that want to keep their guns? Those guys gather at gun ranges. How often do you have shootings at gun ranges?
But hey, that's reality. Don't let actual facts get in the way of your feelings about evil, evil people that are subhuman and different from you.
No-one is talking about mental illness, despite the clear mental instability of these shooters, especially the Sandy Hook shooter. No, all they want to do is ban guns.
If stomping or not stomping on puppies could prevent this sort of thing, then it should be talked about. But it isn't, in the case of mental illness. Why? Because they want to GET THOSE GUNS, no matter what the excuse.
Except you don't. 99% of mugging attempts on armed people end with them showing their gun, and the assailant fleeing. An unknown number of such assailants then re-evaluate their lives, because they could have died doing what they were doing.
Ignore reality more. You don't have to shoot someone to make them run away. The vast majority don't. Just seeing the gun makes them run, EVEN IF THEY ARE ARMED. Why risk death when there are other victims that have no chance of being able to kill you.
You could rob someone carrying a gatling gun, it won't stop a bullet from a Derringer from tumbling through your body.
"I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making" Hope he has a license to do so. As per, http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing ->> With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
ZERO massacres since 1996.
June 2000 - Childers Palace fire.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Naah, I don't think 3D printed guns will appreciably increase firearm deaths. It's so much easier to get a real gun.
You're leaving out the "based on modeled statistical estimates" part, which means this isn't an actual reduction, it's a guess based on lots of assumptions. In addition, the argument that taking away someone's gun prevents them from committing suicide is a bad one. If I want to commit suicide, that is my right and you do not have a right to interfere with my choice.
One data point doesn't even mean there is a correlation; to show a statistical correlation, you need dozens of data points.
In addition, it's clear that gun ownership is not the cause of high homicide rates in the US because gun ownership doesn't correlate with homicide rates when you look at different populations within the US.
If you want to approach this problem rationally, you have to start with the realization that half of US homicides are committed by young African American males; if you bring those rates down to the rates of the general population, the US homicide rate wouldn't be all that unusual. Gun control isn't going to accomplish that.
No pun intended, but I don't get what the big fuss is all about.
a) We can still buy ball bearings, nails, fireworks (in some states), batteries, garage door remotes and pressure cookers even though two shitheads killed 3 people and injured over 200 using those items. You can go to home dipshits and buy all the tools and materials needed to make a weapon. So it's highly unlikely that 3d printing will be banned.
b) Can we just see what this dude comes up with first? If it's all made of ABS, it will be either extremely unsafe to use, or it might just fire some plastic blobs 10 feet, which would make it less harmful than a pellet gun or hell, even something from toys'r'us. This dude is obviously just enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. How about we just ignore him?
So removing guns from the UK doesn't make much difference to the murder rate but in the US, due to the more heated social problems, removing guns would make a difference?
There doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting that hypothesis within US, either. Comparing states is fraught with the same problems as comparing countries, but there are fewer differences, and you can try to pick reasonably similar states, so that you have more than one point - and doing so does not seem to show any correlation between guns and murders or crime in general. On the other hand, if you take a single state with a recent history of increase or decrease in gun control, again, stats don't show it to improve things in any way. IIRC, the only correlation that was found - and a weak one at that, so causative link is not well-established - is between concealed carry laws, and some categories of violent crime going down.
You're leaving out the "based on modeled statistical estimates" part, which means this isn't an actual reduction, it's a guess based on lots of assumptions.
The point was, the wikipedia article you cited did not support your claim, it showed that the numbers in Australia (where the baseline measurement was rather low to begin with) are poorly understood.
In addition, the argument that taking away someone's gun prevents them from committing suicide is a bad one. If I want to commit suicide, that is my right and you do not have a right to interfere with my choice.
Wierd. Right after the word "state." in the part you quoted, it said that it reduced homicides similarly. Guess you missed that.
FWIW, I agree with you on suicides. But it would be much safer for everyone around you if you could go to the pharmacy and purchase a cyanide cap, to be consumed only on the premises (so you didn't take it home to poison someone else). I'm thinking that, even if they had to provide a little annex for you to occupy and a free can of pop to wash it down, it would still be cheaper than a gun, and certainly less hazardous to those around you.
I don't know whether reducing the accessibility of guns reduces murders, it's entirely possible that if you sit down and think "I'm determined to kill Bill, but how?" you'll find a way, even if it's not as easy as a gun. But I'm pretty sure that it reduces homicides. I'd expect that it would reduce unplanned, spur-of-the-moment, and accidental killings, killings by small children, etc. by a lot.
It wasn't "my claim". I merely pointed out that you were misrepresenting and misquoting the Wikipedia article.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
So, now we are only worried about "mass shootings" eh?
Nicely moved goal posts there. GP was talking about how the numbers for your side fail in "crimes of passion" type murders, not "mass shootings".
Care to address the issue at hand? Or are you just going to keep spreading lies....
This is not about supply and demand. It is about exercising Second Amendment rights without the government illegally preventing you from doing so.
Yes, we can now start in discussing what is illegal for the government to do regarding guns, but it still comes down to being able to own a gun without getting permission from the government.
And that can be done if you can *make* the gun yourself.
Cost is not the issue. Supply, if you consider government regulation and denial to be a supply issue, fine.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Prevent suicides by making it unaffordable for people to conveniently kill themselves.
By drying up the supply of bridges and rope, or raising their price?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That horse has already left the barn. Any organized crime group worth a darn is already in possession of the technology to print guns. That fight is already lost.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
but the gangs will get the guns anyway, hell they are a large part of the black market already.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
The cost and knowledge barriers for building a zip gun are relatively static. Those same barriers for 3D printing are dropping rapidly. Within a decade, it will be easier and cheaper to print a gun than build one from scratch, and the end product will be much more reliable.
The cause of which is not guns. Violent crime is driven primarily by poverty and mental health issues; we need to be addressing those problems rather than waste time on crusades against inanimate objects.
Off the top of my head:
Australia's government takes it upon itself to decide what movies you can watch and games you can play. Note that Australia's constitution doesn't even name a right to free speech.
The UK's libel laws are notorious for the burden they place upon defendants. Even when the allegations are objectively, provably true.
France passed a law banning "any visible sign of religious affiliation". No points for guessing who that's really aimed at. But I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Buslims".
And then of course, you have good old Switzerland, with its high rate of gun ownership yet low rate of violent crime, refuting by virtue of its mere existence the simplistic assumption that guns create crime.
In CCW states, that is already the case. I'm sorry, did you think you needed a license just to own a car in the US?
From my comment here?
Clearly you are just pretending to be very stupid in order to play a petty and childish little game at my expense. Although you may not be so bright since you've been taken in by the gun as a substitute penis with a flag tattooed on the side NRA propaganda you are obviously not so stupid as you pretend. Fuck off and use a local example for your childish justification of your toys without responsibility and don't pick on a country where we use them responsibly as tools instead.
The decline is because of various efforts over the last generation and not by magic.
I know that doesn't help your pathetic little line of "kids are just going to have to die in massacres - Australia tried to do something but it didn't help so let's just do nothing, keep using overpowered guns as toys, and be cowards avoiding all responsibility".
Well we did try to do something, and we've been trying since before you or I were born, and it has worked, so piss off with your cowardly bullshit pretending it hasn't. Just because the NRA lost their balls doesn't mean you have to cut yours off too.
There's a good reason why we send military doctors to your adopted country to get experience treating gunshot wounds. I'm sure you can work out why.
There a lot of guns and people who like guns and own guns at balloon factories?
The point is that the presence of guns or people who like guns has no positive correlation (if anything, it has a negative correlation) with mass shootings. Hence, the reduction of available firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens would likely have little to no positive impact on reducing mass shootings.
But please do continue blabbering on about completely unrelated things in a futile attempt to make a non-existent point.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
A couple of months ago I worked really hard to research, write and independently publish an ebook on 3D printing, aimed at ordinary computer users. I made it easy to read, tried to be as imaginative as I could about all the different uses, and endeavoured to fill the book with useful, practical information. I even kept the price down to an absolute minimum ($3.49), just a fraction of the cost of my nearest competitor. I would have liked to have made it free, under a creative commons licence, but, after all, a man has got to eat. Since its release, I have worked hard on promotion, sending out review copies to anybody that showed an interest, as well as making a fair few clumsy mistakes in trying to obtain some free publicity. After all, it was my first attempt at self publishing. Most of all, I wanted to share my experience and enthusiasm with 3D printers, and counter all the articles that describe this technology as a fad, or simply over-hyped. Now Cody Wilson, on the other hand, only has to fart, and the media are all over it, giving him miles of column space, even though my dog probably has more creative flair than this gun obsessed redneck. Now, do not get me wrong, I am as anarchist as the next man (especially if that next man happens to be a noted MIT Professor ;-)), but it it is really getting me down that I am spending so long trying to get my work noticed, while some idiot, who wants to jeopardise the entire 3D printing industry, seems to get more press attention than the leader of North Korea.
At the moment, I am working on an updated edition of the ebook. That may seem fast, but this technology is evolving much faster than most of us expected. My own makerbot experiments are going really well, but my enthusiasm is being hammered every time I read the latest news splash in the wiki weapon saga. What am I doing wrong? Am I banging my head against a brick wall? Am I destined to remain in obscurity while some upstart gun-nut steals the show?
Comment removed based on user account deletion