Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun

Daniel_Stuckey writes with this snippet from Motherboard with an update on Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project: "On Friday morning, Forbes's Andy Greenberg published photos of the world's first completely 3D-printed gun. It has a 3D-printed handle, a 3D-printed trigger, a 3D-printed body and a 3D-printed barrel, all made of polymer. It's not completely plastic, though. So as not to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act and guarantee it would get spotted by a metal detector, Wilson and friends embedded a six-ounce hunk of steel inside the gun. They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

Comments

The answer to the question

[bunbuntheminilop]

The NRA thinks more guns are the answer. Looks like we'll find out if that's true when when we can put a gun in the hands of everyone, rich or poor.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving people ammo would be too socialist.

We'll make people earn their bullets through their own individual efforts.

Re:The answer to the question

[Opportunist]

The NRA are very social guys, they give you bullets for free. Ok, just the front end, but hey...

Re:The answer to the question

[Squiddie]

As opposed to the civilian disarmament crowd that only wants weapons in the hands of the rich and connected.

Re: The answer to the question

[Izuzan]

Problem with that gun they printed. Judging by the round sitting next to it. It fires 22 shorts or cb caps. Not much better than a pellet rifle coming out of a rifle. Be about as good as a pea shooter coming out of a pistol with a inch long barrel.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals. The latter is unavoidable no matter how convenient it may be to pretend it is not.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Honestly it is more complicated than what either you or I just said. There are other issues being ignored. Fact of the matter is, there are more ways people become desperate enough to think violent crime is a good idea in the US than in Europe..save for those nasty bits of it that have far more violent crime than the US does. They are usually ignored too, suprise suprise.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

At the moment, in the USA, anybody can get ahold of a gun by tossing a wad of bills across at table at a gun show

Obviously said by someone who has never tried that technique. And probably has never been to a gun show.

Re:The answer to the question

[uncqual]

just make a gun ownership an instant felony

Which is, of course, only possible in the United States if the United States Constitution is first amended to nullify the Second Amendment. That only takes the approval of 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

The "amending" step is much harder than the act of making gun ownership illegal (which, itself, would be extremely difficult).

Re:The answer to the question

[Jeremi]

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....

Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Re:The answer to the question

[guises]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Nope.

Re:The answer to the question

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Guns can be had for cheap so that really isn't a barrier. On the low end this printed gun probably costs more than a real gun that actually fires a round with some power behind it, has some accuracy, and has a really good chance of NOT blowing up in your face. I have seen rifles in good working order for about $90 (Mosin-Nagent M91/30s or M44s) and handguns for about $120 (Nagent revolvers) from reputable shops. Granted these are not brand new but good condition WWII era Soviet military surplus. If you looked hard you could probably get those cheaper in a shootable but beat up condition but I haven't seen any.

Re:The answer to the question

[ArcherB]

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....

Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"

As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.

Re:The answer to the question

[Entropius]

Ownership of (enough) heroin is also an instant felony. Never mind that heroin has to be smuggled in from overseas, and a junkie requires a continuous supply -- there are lots of junkies around.

The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.

Re:The answer to the question

[eheldreth]

f you had ever actually read the case law instead of quoting some talking point you would know the following. Since the first case to touch on the subject in 1886 the Supreme Court has never questioned the individual right. But please carry on.

1. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 Year 1886 - Supports individual right.

"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 Year 1939 - Supports individual right. In the absence of evidence since miller was dead and his lawyer a no show the court could not overturn the ruling. Also of interest they used military applicability as a test for 2nd amendment protection meaning ar-15's and ak-47's would be a protected weapon.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.

^This. Very much this.

If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Haven't you ever considered where this "living document" bullshit about the Constitution came from? If they can convince a critical mass of people that it's true, they won't have to amend the Constitution. They'll evolve it in the public mind and ignore they parts they don't like.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Learn what you're talking about before you opine.

I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Only if the general population becomes as ignorant as you.

Explain something to me. Why would the government need to add an entry into the "Bill of rights" to protect its own right to arm its soldiers? It goes without saying that soldiers would be armed. That's the entire fucking point of having soldiers. Why would they have to enshrine that ability in the "Bill of rights"?

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Illusions. Criminals will always have means to get guns, in the same way people can get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a "war" that can't be won.

Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.

Re:The answer to the question

[brit74]

According to this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ), the gun-related deaths in the US are:

Total firearm-related death rate: 10.2
Homicides: 3.2
Suicides: 6.3
Unintentional: 0.2
Undetermined: 0.1

The graph in the comic shows the US "gun related murders" on a logrithmic scale a little under 4. Based on that, it's clear that his graph is including gun homicides and not gun suicides.

Re:The answer to the question

[qbzzt]

People who call the constitution "living document" typically seem to be trying to kill it. It is a living document, but it is supposed to be amended through due process.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

I've bought handguns at a gun show with no wait and no background check. When I sold one of them, I advertised it as "no wait, no checks" and someone posed as a buyer just to say I wasn't supposed to say that, even though I'm not even allowed, as a non-dealer, to conduct a check. My most recent gun show was at the Dallas Convention Center, though I read they hadn't had once since 2002, which is about when I left TX (and the gun show I went to was a few years before that), though I did also see a reference to a gun show there in 2012, but no idea if it happened. Walk in with a wad of cash and two guns, and walk out with less cash and 4 guns. Nobody looks twice at you if you flash a gun before asking about theirs.

Re:The answer to the question

[rtb61]

The rich and connected being the, run away, run away, run away, crowd who always expect other people to do their fighting for them whilst they cheer on the conflict at a safe distance. From poopy pants Nugent to Bush the pretend pilot, to Romney the missionary to France, let's be honest arming them is really rather pointless and just for show, other than shooting house servants if they could get away with it.

Whether the weapon is printed, made in a machine shop or bought, makes no difference, when it is illegal and you get caught with it you will be prosecuted and either fined or imprisoned or both. Making weapons illegal does not make them disappear until people are caught with them, which inevitably happens over time given the nature of the people who have an urge to amass illegal weapons.

Very often what it does mean, is those disturbed individuals often get caught for more petty crimes and further investigation reveals the hoard of weapons which are then destroyed and the person who is a threat to society, isolated from society so as to remove the threat. Believe it or not that does makes a huge difference in threat.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Oh, he has a right not to be killed.

But as the saying goes... Your right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.

That is what both of you aren't understanding. It ends at the nose. You don't get to rip my arm off because I MIGHT punch a man. My right to throw a punch ends at the other man's NOSE. When I make contact and NOT BEFORE... I have violated that man's rights and my rights in that matter have been exceeded.

So for example, I can have a gun. And I can shoot that gun. But if the bullets from my gun pass through your body or property then I have violated your rights. I'll even give you the noise pollution argument... so if I'm shooting the gun off at 4 am that is probably a violation of your rights too... assuming I'm doing it for recreational purposes or something.

In any case, my right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.

Simply being CAPABLE of throwing a punch does not violate anyone's rights. Simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.

Your desire to be safe does not entitle you to render anyone else powerless unless they've personally demonstrated themselves to be unfit as citizens. Felons and the like can be justifiably disarmed.

So that's one path to disarming america. Classify everyone as felons. Of course, you'll also disqualify them from voting and get a pretty quick war on your hands. But then you're doing it for the LOLz and that should be pretty funny... in a sick and sad sort of way. But it's the same sort of humor we get out of that thinking. Grim and horrible... but once you get the joke you just can't stop laughing.

Re:The answer to the question

[AmiMoJo]

It would be more accurate to say this fulfils the dream of putting disposable and untraceable weapons in everyone's hands without any kind of background check or limits.

The metal part is optional or soon will be, meaning you can have a weapon that you can print, use and melt down, that is undetectable by conventional means and which has no serial numbers or other identification. It's far from perfect but look how rapidly the technology is advancing.

Re:The answer to the question

[AmiMoJo]

Right, it's because Americans think the best way to defend themselves is to overpower their enemies. You have to have your own gun so you can shoot an intruder or mugger. Europeans prefer to call the police and try to scare the burglar off, rather than getting into a fight.

The result is that criminals come armed and with the intention of murdering you if they feel threatened. Can't just run for it because you don't turn your back on someone who is armed. In Europe they usually flee if discovered.

I don't know how the US can fix this. It's become an arms race. If you don't have a gun you are at the mercy of those who do. Statistically it is better to not threaten the criminal with your own weapon but to either hide or run for it yourself. Even the NRA acknowledges that in their "how to survive a school shooter" videos.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

At some point the intellectual dishonesty of the NRA bashing should come to complete fruition and the Left is going hate it. I factor about the next election cycle when things swing back to the Right due to the ground swell in the grass roots level of this issue, the Left will wish they had hired me to consult for them. lol

Anyway, we've all pissed around, not came to the table in an intelligent approach to problem solving and this article's issue just might be the forefront of a whole new can of worms that's going to stink to high heaven.

Factor this into the equation. Printable guns; who want this in a very bad way? Hmm..I don't know, but if I was a bad guy, an industrious one, tech savy, educated, smart enough to avoid the system if they wanted to do something evil. Here is a way to produce a lethal weapon, ranged, possible sound suppressed. Completely untraceable and disposable. Ha! It's probably recyclable, so it's not only an effective weapon, but it's green. It has appeal to the environmentally conscience villain. Oh yes, and thanks to the movies, we know that metal detectors don't work on plastic guns or their parts. Hurray!

Yeah, inability to work on comprehensive policies is either hallmark of incompetence or corruption. Either way, we are dealing with the possibility of a whole new animal being released into the wild, and we are fucking around arguing about dumb shit like "background checks". What you need is policy that preserves the integrity and spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and places some highly intelligent safety features into play. You can have your cake and eat it as well if you are smart and can work together.

Here's how I see this kind of animal romping about the countryside. The only hope you will have to contain this is through the tools perhaps, and the plastics used to create this. This will catch the dummies, which leaves the smart guys. They will be able to fabricate this and perhaps come up with their on innovations. Your first bad guys will of course be corporate and government types. This is where the really juicy targets are at. At super high dollar and high level corporate shenanigans, this will make wet work far more elegant, the same with politics. When you are dealing with those resources and those stakes, this will find a nice happy home. On down the food chain it rolls, assassins, vigilantes, crime crews, "militias", you name it.

But the bullets, you say? Seriously?

Factor this, if you can print the gun, you can print the simple reloading tools as well. Why not the shell casings and with some modification, even the bullets themselves. With modern chemistry and completely doped up idiots making meth out of common chemicals, how hard will it be for sober people to create a propellant? The variables on that equation get difficult to lock down as any chemical training will probably yield results.

This is dismaying. Even if we found a bottle on the beach and wished every gun on the planet to be turned into kittens and cheese burgers, we will still have them appear, but now not out of predicable venues, but out of thin air as far as any system is concerned. Let's face it, bad people will have reached their weapon production zenith, while the rest of us flounder around in inept, corrupt politics.

Re:The answer to the question

[rbrander]

Well, I just went to Wikipedia for five minutes, but it's not really helping you. The "crime in canada" article says:

"The number of murders dropped to 594 in 2007, 12 fewer than the previous year. One-third of the 2007 murders were stabbings and another third were by firearm. In 2007, there were 190 stabbings and 188 shootings. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm murders."

So, really hard to say if "blunt force trauma" is most of the remaining third, but probably is, along with strangling and eye-poking and whatnot. So it's basically one-third each to clubs/hands, knives, and guns.

OK, so how do Americans bump each other off? Googling "by weapon" got me: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

For that same 2007, it says 10,086 by gun, 1796 by cutting and stabbing, 647 by blunt object, 854 by hand, 130 arson, 1016 all other reasons.

Dividing by ten to get those numbers in Canadian proportions, your 1797 stabbings become 180, about our 190 stabbings; your blunt-object+hand becomes about 150, same neck of the woods, anyway.

Only the gun numbers are really proportionally higher. Over FIVE TIMES higher.

Not my area of expertise, or a political topic I care much about, but simple stats are easy to look up. They say that while you may denigrate the source of this statistical analysis as a "cartoon", the information appears to be quite correct and your "the same murder rate just shifts to other weapons" thesis is not supported.

Liberator?

[gman003]

They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.

Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.

I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.

Re:Liberator?

[gman003]

Yes, but to achieve *victory* there must be a transition from asymmetric to symmetric war.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the "occupying force" is not local. It can, and will, leave as soon as the cost (in lives or dollars) becomes too great, or when the political landscape no longer favors it. There, the resistance merely has to *exist*, and to function with some semblance of competence.

However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency. The only way to end the war is for one force to establish itself as the sole military force. Either the original army wins, or the revolution grows strong enough to overpower them. Or, alternatively, the guerrilla forces (c'mon, do you really think there will be only one other faction?) manage to dismantle the "occupying force" but none will be able to establish supremacy, leaving a state of anarchy until one eventually consolidates power.

This is also why wars that start as open military conflict rarely persist long as insurgencies. After losing an open war once, few are willing to fight an insurgency that they *know* is going to have to convert, as some point, into another open war.

Is there a children's version?

[Alejux]

My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!

Re:Is there a children's version?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of what goes wrong in many gun discussions and debates. Misinformation. Misinformation. Misinformation.

It's a Hello Kitty AR15.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the 'smuggling' angle is just to instill fear into citizens to supporting more laws against firearms in this country. Our founderd never stipulated that a 'arm' had to be 'detectable' and in fact, would fully support such a concept if it was possible.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Trepidity]

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fluffy99]

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[He Who Has No Name]

No... they really can't.

Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.

Re:weird

[Overzeetop]

What, that it's a billion dollar operation that's mostly about entertainment and gossip?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A surprising number of 3d printing projects seem to have been born of the fact that the gutting of domestic blue-collar production means that we currently have a massive glut of geeks who want to make things; but who never had wood shop(and certainly not metal shop, heaven forfend!) in school, and whose fathers pushed paper for a living and weren't in a position to teach them anything about manufacturing...

There are, undoubtedly, applications for which 3d printed materials cannot be matched by any conventional technique(some of the 'sure, let's just print a highly detailed collagen matrix to build a replacement organ' stuff, or some of the single-piece geometry you can get, along with anything that rewards rapid turnaround on very small runs); but there are a lot of 3d printed objects that are essentially really bad plastic versions of something that could have been knocked together with the machine tools of 50 years ago, never mind fancy CNC gear.

(And lest anybody think that I'm criticizing from the outside, I'm actually in a pretty similar boat. My grandfather was a mechanical engineer, did it at work, had a pretty serious setup in his basement. We didn't live at all close to that side of the family, so I only really saw it when doing logistics after the funeral. Dad was mostly a white-collar numbers guy, with a little bit of hobby carpentry that tapered off after he had kids. My own education was strictly college prep, and my only machine-tool time was through a university, plus the online services.)

Are they really Morons?

[Okian Warrior]

... You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.

...Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.

Should we blame these people for inciting others to action?

I don't think that's right. We should put the blame where it rightly belongs, which is with whatever regulation agency decides to ban things.

Also, should we worry about repercussions before there actually *are* repercussions? Aren't we guessing an extreme consequence here? I mean, do we want to be the "game over, man" guy from that Aliens movie?

And finally, should we be calling people morons and dictating their actions in a dismissive tone on the subject of gun control? There are reasoned arguments on both sides - the percentage spread between pro and con arguments is not totally convincing one way or another - certainly not at the p<0.05 confidence level we typically use. We may disagree with their position, but can we say without reservation that their position has no merit?

Personally, I'm against dictating the actions of others in the first place. I like to hold people responsible for their actions, and these people have done nothing that harms others. The sophistry "they're enabling others to kill" is just that - an emotional narrative with no basis used to sway an argument. If (and that's a big if) others are enabled by these acts, then the others would be responsible, not these people.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

Notice how we didn't ask you about it.

Unlike Europe and Asia, this country was not founded by a conquering king. It was founded on the abuse of authority; we won our freedom because the civilians had guns and formed militias. For a while after that, we kept our freedom because the politicians were afraid that if they abused their authority that the citizenry would not be afraid to use them again. Quotes by people like James Madison sum it up better than I can: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Of course, members of our government don't feel quite as threatened today, or if they do they don't mention it.

We also don't have to look back too far in history to see what tyrannical governments have done to unarmed civilians. Germany and Russia in the last century, of course; but Cuba and North Korea still run roughshod over their civilians. We say to ourselves, "we'd never let that happen here", and we mean it.

When some group says "we have guns because we have the right to hunt, or we need to defend ourselves from crime", they're being disingenuous. We have guns because we want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious. The 3AM knock on the door to haul away a political dissident will not be allowed to become commonplace here, because we don't even track the law abiding citizens that have guns.

Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep. If it my child were killed in a school shooting, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

Re:If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teen

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Don't be so negative. Imagine a bright future where you can 3d-print your own Darwin Award, wouldn't that be nice?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Lumpy]

You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[DaHat]

I'm confused... do you think Americans have a love of guns because Smith & Wesson, Remington, Lugar, Glock, etc all advertise heavily on tv, radio, billboards, bus benches, magazines, etc and that said advertising is so effective that (some) people rush into gun stores in order to buy?

With the exception of a few hunting or firearm related channels or magazines... I see far more advertising for beer or cigarettes on an average day than I do for firearms.

For the most part, firearms sales in this country have been pretty healthy for quite some time... they only spike in response to external stimuli (such as our currently slightly diminished push for additional 'gun control')... we see the same thing in plenty of other areas... grocery and home improvement stores tend to see pretty healthy sales though the year... then when there is news of an impending storm... both are cleaned out of supplies that people think they won't be able to get afterwards.

Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.

Personally speaking... I have a 'personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars'

I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

Of course only an American would think that they are unique in overthrowing tyranny. Whilst it is true that America was founded as a direct result of this you ARE NOT unique and special. For example we here in Britain; The English Civil War, wich actually resulted in the execution of our king in an attempt to curtail tyranny. Perhaps you forgot about that one. We also find some sections of the American populace self centered, selfish. Perhaps reason you have so many troubles is this idea of Libertarianism, essentially the idea of, "my rights first, fuck everybody else's rights". I honestly think your founding fathers is they could see what you have become as a nation would disown you. This idea that an unarmed populace couldn't fight a tyrannical government is pretty weak to be honest. For every example that you give I can give a counter. For example The Spanish Civil War. Unarmed civilians very quickly organised into armed "militia". So your populace is having to endure slaughter, innocent kids etc... Because you as a nation seem to have this paranoid belief that the jack boots are going to kick your doors down at "3AM" and arming yourselves to the teeth with little of no regulation ("My rights, me, me, me") is the answer. It obviously isn't working. Time to evolve and change?