Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it can spread via the Internet and entirely circumvent gun control laws. Two days after that digital weapon's blueprint first appeared online, it seems to be fulfilling that promise. Files for the printable gun known as that 'Liberator' have been downloaded more than 100,000 times in two days, according to Defense Distributed, the group that created it. Those downloads were facilitated by Kim Dotcom's startup Mega, which Defense Distributed is using to host the Liberator's CAD files. And it's also been uploaded to the Pirate Bay, where it's one of the most popular files in the filesharing site's uncensorable 3D printing category."

Comments

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

Re:Yawn

[TWiTfan]

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

Re:Yawn

[xenobyte]

There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

Certainly not all of us. I'm very much for gun ownership for one reason: As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted), and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already), people need to be armed in order to meet the challenge on an equal footing.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Ammo is the problem. But I can imagine them being created and distributed among gangs. You think urban crime is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet once the basement dwelling production starts.

Malarky.

Gang bangers can get a Saturday Night Special for less than $100 on the black market, one that's good for several shots. A 3d printed gun is good for maybe 1 shot, barring catastrophic failure, and use hundreds of dollars worth of material, not to mention the cost of the printer to make them with.

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.

Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

Hicks know better and already own a bunch of real guns.

What you'd get with the modified version is the urban script kiddies. New York City hicks (they think the world ends at the border of their home town).

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

I don't know of anything illegal or unethical about making a bunch of zip guns and turning them in for a gun buy-back. I'd go so far as to say it's a moral imperative. If you don't drain the gun buy-back fund with profitable junk, quality guns will be destroyed and utility will be lost.

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

Realistically, this method is not for people who could not otherwise obtain a weapon and is unlikely to ever be. What it does do is produce a physical manifestation of a largely intellectual and ideological point as part of a larger discussion. Such techniques are unlikely to have any impact on actual access to or ownership of weapons.

Re:Yawn

[LF11]

Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough.

In my opinion, the principle value of this is in the hystrionics it induces in the hearts of people who don't understand civil liberties.

This is the best way of gun control

[Hentes]

Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Infiniti2000]

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[robthebloke]

Gun deaths in the US in 2010: 11,078 homicides, 19,392 suicides, and 606 unintentional killings.

Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

Because that's a stupid argument, and you already know the answer.

In the vietnam war, 58,000 american soldiers lost their lives. A large number (but not all) US citizens campaigned for US troups to pull out, and eventually that happened. You see the thing about a democracy is, that you make decisions based on the majority, not the minority. It so happens that an overwhelming majority or americans believe that cars are a good thing, and should not be banned. The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree). They might not agree on everything, but there is general agreement for tighter restrictions. You might not like this, you might not agree with it, but unfortunately, you live in a democracy and therefore have to accept societies wishes I'm afraid. The best thing you can do, is stop making trite arguments, and start making sensible suggestions for compromises that would both be acceptable for you, and for the anti-gun lobby.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

If firearms stop working, every human being is at the mercy of larger and stronger people.

Fortunately, 100% of larger and stronger people aren't vicious muder-rapist psychopaths just waiting for the chance to rampage over society. I think there are plenty of perfectly nice large and strong people to handle the tiny few who suddenly decide to go rogue. Hey, I already walk around unarmed --- a short, flabby weakling --- and yet don't regularly get beset by burly bandits. With guns, I'm still at the mercy of those better armed, with better marksmanship, and more willingness to initiate violence with the element of surprise (no matter how well-armed a sharpshooter I am, I'm still screwed if a stranger decides to shoot me in the back of my head).

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Myopic]

Who pretty much has that anyway? We don't register, license, or inspect guns in most places in America, certainly not anywhere I've lived (Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont, Nevada, Wisconsin). When I got my first gun I asked, "so how do I register it?" and people laughed at me. "Register it? Why would you do that?"

The answer to "come up with some meaningful way to get people to lock up firearms" is insurance. If people had to buy insurance against mis-use of their firearms then that would be a 90% solution to the problem. Insurers would do inspections of homes and come up with rubrics by which to judge risk that a person would allow their gun to be used improperly. People who securely lock their guns would pay low rates, wackaloon rednecks with small cocks who wave guns around like it was the end times would pay high rates, perhaps high enough to be prohibitive.

Like having laws against child abuse, we don't let people "get their progeny killed". We here in Western Civilization consider that bad because it is a violation of individual rights -- you don't get to do just any fuck-all thing you want to your children, because your children are people not property. Only an asshat would suggest that as a good reason to let fucktards be negligent with guns.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Since you brought up Automobile deaths vs Firearms death, lets really look at the data.

Number of households in the US: 114,761,359 (2007-2011)
Number of households in the US with at least one automobile: (90.9% 2010): 104,318,076
Number of households in the US with at least one firearm: (47% Gallup 2011): 53,937,839

Number of deaths involving an automobile in the US: (2010) 35,332 (no breakdown of accidental, homicide, or suicide given)
Number of deaths involving a firearm in the US: (2010) 31,672 including 11,078 homicides, 606 accidental discharge, 19,392 suicides, 252 undeterminable intent, 344 other.

Using the above (all from US census with the exception of the gallop poll as indicated which agrees with NRA estimates), lets normalize the mortality rate based on availability within a household:
Number of deaths per 100,000 households with automobiles involving an automobile in US: 33.9
Number of deaths per 100,000 households with firearms involving a firearm in US: 58.7

As you can see the mortality rate from firearms is 24.8 greater than automobiles. The correct method of interpreting these calculations are as follows:
34 out of 100,000 households with an automobile experienced or caused a death with an automobile in 2010.
59 out of 100,000 households with a firearm experienced or caused a death with a firearm in 2010.
(Note: "experienced or caused a death" signifies that the death originated from the item within the household. The death itself can be within a household that doesn't possess the item.)

This exercise highlights the fact that while there were 3,660 more deaths involving automobiles than firearms in 2010, only 47% of the households had access to a firearm versus 90.9% of the households having access to a motor vehicle.

Despite your assertion that "No one is screaming to Congress to ban automobiles", there are quite a large number of governmental regulations related to motor vehicles. Comparing automobile deaths with firearm related deaths actually hurts your argument since it demonstrates that the regulation of manufacture (safety, fuel efficiency, pollution controls), ownership (registration and taxation) and operation (licensing and traffic enforcement) keeps the mortality rate of automobile ownership quite low despite being in almost 91% of households.

Of course this ignores the fact automobiles are designed to transport people and firearms are designed to kill.

Re:Which law?

[Feyshtey]

Not even printing and assemblng the weapon breaks gun control law. You need no license or certification to produce a firearm, unless that weapon is a class3 (fully auto, cannons, sawed off shotguns, mortars, etc.), or you intend to sell it.

Uhm

[noobermin]

DISCLAIMER: I am a godless liberal in some respects, so I might be biased...but this is becoming like bitcoin, guys. A 3D printed gun is cool to me as a demonstration of the advanced state of the technology, but we don't need a story of even little happening with TEH 3D PRONTED GUNNS (GUBERMIENT, etc).

Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[PortHaven]

Really, cause I think he nailed it.

I'd also point out that the very first "metal" guns weren't all that safe and reliable as well. So this is a generation 1 prototype. Consider in 20 years, when 3D printers are in most middle class homes (if we still have a middle class). What do you think 20 years of tweaking and discovery will do? Might these become more reliable, & safer,... there was a time that folk though using a polymer frame on a handgun was ludicrus. Glocks and many others have shown that is NOT the case.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Ironchew]

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Yawn)

[WillAdams]

Gun ownership among everyone in the U.K. is low. It was so low in WWII that ``The American Committee for defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns (and binoculars) from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes'':

http://twinbuttebunch.org/index.php?fuseaction=misc.sendguns

I'm given to understand that my grandfather sent over a Remington No. 4 which an uncle of mine had cut down to a pistol....

This article indicates a dramatic uptick in gun crime (89%) in the U.K. though:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

FWIW, I can't think of a single police force in the U.S. where regular police officers on patrol carry submachine guns.

Another article:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

An interesting statistic is that a home is burglarized when occupied ~13% of the time in the U.S., while that number is 47% in the U.K. --- my father worked as a prison guard, and a recurring theme among people serving time for robbery was the importance of ``casing the joint'' because one didn't want to risk confronting an armed home-owner.

and here's an article which argues about statistical reporting:
http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

and here're some hard numbers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

A government strong enough to protect you from everything, is strong enough to take everything from you.

William

Bullshit

[SuperKendall]

For a criminal, the prospect to creating guns without serial numbers is potentially very appealing.

That's a really ignorant statement, because it assumes criminals buy from sources where serial numbers can be tracked.

In reality criminals don't care about serial numbers, because they are buying from illegal gun suppliers. Not having to abide by any rules, illegal guns are cheaper and easier to acquire and not traceable to boot.

So being able to print out a far less usable gun holds zero appeal to the criminal element.