Slashdot Mirror


The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired

On Friday, we mentioned that Defense Distributed had created a (near-enough-to) fully 3-D printed pistol. Sparrowvsrevolution now writes that "Last week, the Liberator was fired for the first time at a firing range and successfully shot a .380 caliber bullet using a remote firing setup. Over the weekend, Defense Distributed's founder, the anarchist and radical libertarian Cody Wilson, was bold enough to try firing it by hand. The results of that test, witnessed by a reporter, indicate that the era of the 3D-printed firearm may be upon us, for better or for worse." Predictably, certain politicians are — so to speak — up in arms about it.

6 of 717 comments (clear)

  1. Re: That's nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nah its about the bribery. The gun industry needs their profits so they lobby for no gun control. 3d printing guns would reduce profits so it must be banned.

  2. Re:Not really by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

    This is why 3D printed guns are a game changer: the average Joe Blow can get himself a gun without needing any sort of gunsmithing skills.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. BBC has video - look like quite a recoil by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Video here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185

    From the video, looks like despite the modest cartridge used, there's quite a kick. Guess the plastic is rather light.
    So, no need to get excited folks; a one-shot weapon with really poor accuracy, which needs a 3D printer.
    Thus more difficult and costly to produce, yet no more effective, than a 'saturday night special', 'zip gun' or 'bang stick', plans for which have been freely available for a long time.
    Probably equally as likely to blow up in your face, too...

  4. Re:Ultimately we do need more government intervent by krygny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  5. Re:That's nice by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita . . .

    Do you see the difference?

    Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.

    Murder by Numbers

    Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.

    80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
    Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

    *Or was it their souls go straight to hell? I forget.

    --
    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
  6. Re:Ultimately we do need more government intervent by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are so so far off it's not even funny.

    The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.

    Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.

    The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.

    "a well regulated militia",

    Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.

    "They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia"
    And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.

    "The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."

    And this statement is based on zero proof of evidence.