Slashdot Mirror
Working Handgun Printed On a Sub-$2,000 3D Printer
Just a few weeks after Cody Wilson and friends successfully fired an instance of their own 3-D printed handgun design, Sparrowvsrevolution writes, "a couple of Wisconsin hobbyist gunsmiths have already managed to adapt Defense Distributed's so-called Liberator firearm and print it on a $1,725 Lulzbot 3D printer, a consumer grade machine that's far cheaper than the industrial quality Stratasys machine Defense Distributed used. They then proceeded to record their cheaper gun (dubbed the 'Lulz Liberator') firing nine .380 rounds without any signs of cracking or melting. Eight of the rounds were fired from a single plastic barrel. (Defense Distributed only fired one through its prototype.) In total, the Lulz Liberator's materials cost around $25 and were printed over just 48 hours."
The Lulz Liberator uses more metal parts than the original Liberator...so at least this would be harder to sneak past a metal detector.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In 1994 a friend and I assembled a .22 from hardware store pipe, a hacksaw, a drill, some nails, and springs. It had a hammer and a trigger. We followed no plans...we just knew you needed a barrel, and something to smack the rim of the bullets we had...and we improvised. It worked fine, but you have to unscrew the barrel to to reload its single shot.
When a marketing claim conflicts with real-world-testing-based claims by tinkerers, I consider the marketing claim to be false until proven otherwise.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Zip guns are nothing new. You can with a bit of know how make one from stuff you buy at a hardware store (and far cheaper and easier).
This 3d printed gun thing is just a variation on zip guns. I would go as far to say it is a novelty more than anything.
Right now the cost of the plastic to put into these things is worth more than the object they are making.
It may be a fun proof of concept, but about the only things it is good for are generating political hype and drawing attention to the inventors.
People fail to realize that it's much easier and cheaper to make a home made gun using existing tools and materials. Just because someone now made a [not very good] one using a 3D printer, everybody seems to be freaking out.
Further well-grounded and thoughtful discussion on the matter can be found here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/oh_no_its_the_plastic_3d_gun/
I wouldn't be surprised if some type of DRM appeared on printers to prevent this, similar to the algorithm in color copiers which at best locks up a copier, at worst phones home, if someone places a dollar or Euro on the glass and hits copy.
The DRM could look for blueprint designs by hash, or certain "gun-like" items.
This could easily become law in days.
Of course, it will result in a cat and mouse game, but in a cat and mouse game, the cat almost always wins.
You can't 3d print a spring with a plastics printer.
Printing a Compression Spring on a RepRap / RepStrap 3D Printer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHrlasCSa3U
Yes, yes, we know everyone who's really attached to their guns is paranoid about impending tyranny. You don't need to remind us.
What did you expect from a 25 dollar gun that is in its beta stage?
Despite it no longer being a "3d printed gun", it would still be a game changer in the sense that this would be a functional multi-shot gun that can be manufactured by pretty much anyone with access to a crappy consumer-grade printer, without requiring any gunsmithing, metal working or other mechanical skills. If you can assemble a simple Lego kit, you can put together such a gun.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Tyranny is already here. It is just masked in Bureaucracy. All you need to know is that the Powers that be, have already targeted "enemies of the state", simply because they oppose the Bureaucracy's over reaching power.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, but neither is fertilizer when you get down to it. I'm about to go on a tirade for a position that isn't really even mine:
Gun control is about impulsive people.
You're never going to stop a McVeigh of Bin Laden with gun control. They're meticulous planners who will not be impeded by inconveniences, and will work around them. They'll build their own materials, circumvent safety control systems, and seek to maximize damage. Those people aren't the most common problem. Their problem is that they are certain that their cause is just.
The most common thread in criminals, particularly murderers, is poor impulse control and emotional volatility. People kill because they get angry, or desperate. 3/4 of people who attempt suicide will be deterred by a simple obstacle or obstruction in their way. People being rational don't murder. Gun control is about limiting the ease with which someone can engage in irrational acts.
Silly, paranoid people! Why, it's like they believe they live in a country where:
Silly, paranoid gun owners!
Thank God we live in America rather than that paranoid, nightmarish, Orwellian police state!
Sorry for the digression, but real predator-prey dynamics are more complicated than that. Predators are far short of 100% efficient (citation needed; I am lazy!), and predator and prey populations are interdependent. I can only speculate about the analogy to regulation and disobedience, but it seems possible that it still holds up. There could be the same back-and-forth between the success of regulators and the success of those who circumvent or evade the regulation.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
*Gun control is about limiting the ease with which someone can engage in irrational acts.*
Then maybe, just maybe, we ought to be working on helping the irrational rather than banning inanimate objects that can do nothing at all on their own.
But you know what? It will never happen, because the gun banners DON"T CARE about addressing the base cause of violent crime, they just want to ban guns. Period.
You could have saved yourself some effort if you left out everything prior to the comma.
Log in or piss off.
That's like saying we can end war or hunger. What are you, some kind of hippie?
It does appear that the goal is not to reduce crime, though that is used as a statistic. I do agree that the banning of guns appears to be an end on its own for these people. It makes little sense. There is an irrational fear, probably instilled at an early age. It is similar to the irrational fear that other people have towards people instead of objects. I think it is the same base motivation, and the separate groups each see their cause as just. It doesn't mean they both aren't delusional though.
The gap between cylinder and barrel might be problematic. An imperfectly aligned cylinder will increase wear and stress on any revolver, and a polymer frame revolvers have issues with frame ablation/cutting from the gasses coming out of the gap. The pepperbox concept would be a logical first step to avoid those issues which could prove catastrophic on an ABS barrel/frame revolver.
no, he is making a valid point. Mental health program budgets have been slashed and many of the people that have gone on to spree kill were identified or asked for help, but the system was not capable of helping them.
It's a lot easier to take away guns from irrational people than it is to get them to control their impulses. When you figure out how to get irrational people to control their impulses, let me know.
I don't know where you get the idea that gun banners don't care about addressing the base cause of violent crime. The people who led the effort were doctors who got tired of having people dying from gun wounds in the emergency room. They were happy to reduce violence any way they could do it. The easiest way was to start by taking away the guns.
They're the same people who are trying to reduce poverty, increase education, etc. but that's a long, indirect path.
This story isn't about 3D printing weapons at home, it's about people doing things that make all people with hobbyist 3D printers at home (myself included) look like gun-nut-freaks to the general public (before that it was just pretty nerdy). The first time I mentioned my printer to my mother, she told me about some cop show (CSI, Criminal Minds?) episode she'd seen the previous night where the killer had 3D printed his handgun to get it through security. This has now become the primary thing that the general public associates with 3D printers. It's sad.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Then maybe, just maybe, we ought to be working on helping the irrational rather than banning inanimate objects that can do nothing at all on their own.
But you know what? It will never happen, because the gun banners DON"T CARE about addressing the base cause of violent crime, they just want to ban guns. Period.
The solution is simple. Make guns illegal for all men, and legal for all women. Then you can have your protection, and keep the guns out of the hands of the vast majority of violent criminals. As long as you always have an armed girlfriend/wife with you, that is. Touch that gun though, and an electric shock ends your life!
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to just buy them second-hand out of the classified ads in the newspaper. I really don't understand why people think they have to 1) have millions of dollars in funding, 2) need fake passports and visas, 3) need to smuggle their weapons into a country already awash with them, 4) need to be willing to commit suicide to be effective. I blame Hollyweird to some extent, but mostly I think that people are just too stupid and lazy to spend 30 seconds to think about any of those points to realize how absurd they are.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Let's see.... Nothing you posted was actually what your article said. None of it. It varies between misrepresentation to outright lie. Why can't you just use the truth in your arguments? Really? I know there's problems. Everyone knows there's problems. Making stuff up just makes you look legitimately paranoid.
1. Misrepresentation(A crime was committed, but it wasn't that, paranoid confirmation bias at work)
2. Outright fabrication
3. Was with a warrant, so no.
4. Being sued with a claim doesn't make it true. The complaint includes accusations that representatives were "rude". Really?
5. That's not what happened and that's pretty clearly intentionally a misrepresentation of the investigation's purpose, and only reflects your paranoia. I cannot understand how you'd possibly misconstrue the purpose that far, other than paranoia.
6. Oh no, someone has an opinion that's different than yours. And she's a politician. That's tyranny.
Christ this post is just doubling down on intentionally misreading everything. I used to be sympathetic about the damned IRS thing until everyone started pretending it meant something besides what happened.
The NRA still does a lot of firearms education and training. The rabid anti-gun folks stand in the way of these efforts at every opportunity however. Firearms-related accidents are good for the anti-gun agenda
Check out the Eddie Eagle program:
http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=1353
Now, try attending a city council or school board meeting and proposing that you have the NRA come in and give a firearms safety presentation to the school kids.
In many places, people will be screaming at the top of their lungs at the idea of having anything NRA-related coming anywhere near the schools.
The NRA didn't suddenly get "whacked out" and shift its focus. The 1960s is when the big push for new federal anti-gun legislation came along. The last thing the federal government wanted at the time was a bunch of well armed black people demanding equality.
did you even read it? as all? can you read? are you just blindly linking cause some else who didn't read it told you it was bad?
Are you stupid?
His fine has to do with the 3 unregistered weapons he had. Normally he would go to jail, but since he saved the child he is just getting the fine.
This is reasonable.
From the article you didn't bother to read:
"
As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general.
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said.
Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case.
"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on