Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds

coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."

Comments

first

[Anonymous Coward]

apk does not know the truth about host files

How long before

[mozumder]

these things are ready to kill a classroom full of first-graders?

Not too familiar with firearms terminology, since i'm not dumb enough to own a gun and have no desire to shoot up my family, but is that the standard measure of gun reliability? "First-graders-killed-per-minute"?

Re:How long before

[Noughmad]

It's still easier for first-graders to steal their parents' guns than printing their own. That might not be true for long, though.

Re:How long before

[harvestsun]

Oh mozumder, I never tire of your batshit crazy posts

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

"First-graders-killed-per-minute"?
that would be a measure of performance
You're looking for the MTBF typically measured in "Second-graders-killed-per-receiver".

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that anything like the "child body count from creating gun-free zones in which only criminals have guns"?

Re:How long before

[jbeaupre]

When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the UK?

Re:How long before

[Opportunist]

Well, a gun is by itself a rather simple design. You need a barrel to hold the explosion, you need a way to get a bullet in (if everything else fails, stuff it in from the end where it will go out of again) and some way to strike the priming pan. These are by no means features that the average teen with at least a hint of metal working skills cannot pull off.

And if they are front loader, just take a few more along and come prepared. Kids have a lot of time at their hands.

In general, I see that demonstration more as something to show off what you can actually do with 3D printing. It's quite striking because it happens to be a tool that can kill, but it's not like making a gun from "normal" materials is really that difficult. Actually, I'd consider it a lot easier (and probably faster, too) than printing one.

Re:How long before

[pyalot]

Only until disney rolls out 3d printers for every kid and to the next defcon where they hack the firmware.

Re:How long before

[JaredOfEuropa]

That was never true in countries with strict gun control laws. Of course, in those countries those first graders can print guns but will still have a hard time obtaining the ammo for them.

Speaking of gun control: in my country there's a ban on anything that looks like a real gun (and a ban on actual guns as well). So you can have things like Airsoft guns as long as they are made to look like toys, having bright colors etc. But now we'll have actual guns that look like toys...

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

SA-80 already looks (and feels) like a toy.

Re:How long before

[rally2xs]

These things may be ready to defend a classroom of first graders from someone trying to shoot them.

Re:How long before

[g0bshiTe]

So as long as my Desert Eagle 50 cal is bright orange and doesn't look real I'm allowed to keep it in your country?

Re:How long before

[g0bshiTe]

Really? A barrel to hold the explosion, and a firing pan? Do you know how a gun works and what century are you from? Guns haven't had firing pans in well about 100 years.

A barrel directs the energy and force of the bullets propellant explosion which means path of least resistance IE the open side.
Bullets now have a nifty little thing called a primer cap. Once impacted it causes a wee little explosion that ignites the powder inside the cartridge causing a bigger explosion.

Now I didn't bother to RTF but if this is either a flintlock muzzle loader or a matchlock that's different. They both have firing pans.

Re:How long before

[Hognoxious]

there's a ban on anything that looks like a real gun (and a ban on actual guns as well). [...] you can have things like Airsoft guns as long as they are made to look like toys, having bright colors etc.

I suspect the answer to your question is "no".

I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

I hope this rifle explodes and kills him. I understand the motivation to go and explore the limits of 3D printing. But rifles and handguns? They are useless for hunting or self defense. About the only thing they're useful is terrorism and/or dodging regulations.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[CanHasDIY]

In other words, "somebody did something I disagree with, so I think he should be seriously injured and/or killed."

So.. when exactly did you sign up for Slashdot, Kim Jong? Or am I addressing a different batshit insane despot?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this rifle explodes and kills him.

Then you're a worse person than you imagine him to be.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Ardyvee]

Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a firearm, but then ask yourself why is the US investing in military research (that will undoubtedly produce technology useful for civilians).

I think wishing that it kills him is a bit too much. Besides, wouldn't terrorists have an R&D group that could do the same this man is doing or more? Unless you mean limited-resources terrorists, but those aren't really the ones we probably need to care about (imo).

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

TBH that's exactly how democracy works, except your opinion just has to be popular enough for whatever you "disagree with" to be outlawed. And instead of just hitting someone, we lock them away, which comes down to the same thing.

And no, libertarianism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for property law. And no, communism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for sharing anything you happen to cherish.

So, your alternatives are tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Welcome to civilisation. Regardless, we don't do too badly, you know?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" kind of thing. He doesn't want to inflict harm or even kill him, he just wants "divine justice": For someone who makes things that will be used to kill other people to die by his own invention.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Hi, you either don't understand the premise of non-aggression, or intentionally ignore it. Don't do that. It cheapens your argument.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Nope. I'd really like if every decision had consequences. I.e. if you refuse to be an organ donor then you should be disqualified from receiving them. If you invent a terror weapon - it'd be only fitting if you die by it.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Live by the sword implies the use of the tool, not merely the existence of the tool. This man didn't murder anyone, it wouldn't be divine comeuppance for him to die. It would make as much sense (i.e. none at all) to look at a demolition engineer and say, "He worked with explosives, a bomb-maker, it's fitting that it exploded in his face." This man has not "lived by the sword" by any sane definition.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

You're not saying enough to be clear about what you're referring to, but I can guess already that I might disagree with your definition of "non-aggression".

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

You're saying that you want to be killed by a torrent of really bad troll posts? That's what I'm getting from this.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Nuclear bomb was morally ambiguous. It was developed to actually stop an aggression of a terrible enemy. These guns are made specifically to make dodging regulations easier.

This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

I'm referring to one of the core tenants of Libertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle -- Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.

Using...

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Getting trolled in return? I don't mind.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Using your brains, not guns. Especially not printed guns. I've said multiple times that gun nuts who think that their guns would be in any way important in changing government are below contempt.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Tennent 1: coo koo!
Tennent 2: bat takes a poop a crazy poop
Tennent 3: coo koo!

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?

Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played, I guess, although I would say that the Koch brothers are the core "tenants" of libertarianism in the US.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?

Go fuck yourself.

(yes, this post is a joke, but I doubt you'll get it).

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. This weapon has no applications except for mischief; the only people really benefiting from this are criminals and those who need a untraceable gun (hard to find any legal reasons for that).

All us whom have legal weapons will instead be having hard time with new regulations concerning bullets, storage, producing and buying. If they can't stop creation of the weapons they sure will do all they can to stop "illegal bullets".

For sure bullets will become very expensive for those who have legal use of them and a new reason to get searched.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

Say it all you want, that doesn't give it weight. Care to justify your claim?

I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force. This is false. Look at the US involvement in the middle East, or what happened in Northern Ireland.

Especially not printed guns.

We already know that improvised weapons can be effective against modern militaries.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[gutnor]

Guns and current combustion engine share the same principle. If you can print a gun that fires reliably, you are much closer to be able to print an engine. The design of a printed engine could be radically different compared to one that need to be assembled and maintained.

Just illustrating your point. But to add one of my own. Today, you can machine a gun using a lathe and a few other low tech tools, yet it seems that everybody is nevertheless finding real factory made gun: drug lord, petty thief, terrorist, 13 year old kid in Africa, ...

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.

They deserve as much sympathy as a terrorist bomb-maker.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

What are you going to do against a modern army? Poke Abrams tanks with a sharp 3D-printed stick? Perhaps, shoot bombers from your handgun? You can not win against a modern army using only light weapons. There's no question about it. Can you remind me which military has given something beyond token resistance to the US army lately?

Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living hell. But if you're thinking about using terrorist weapons with impunity, then have you ever thought about an army that doesn't have modern rules of engagement?

Oh, I get it. You'd prefer to kill toddlers, perhaps even primary school children. That'll surely help your cause.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[jeffmflanagan]

> Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral. Yes, wishing people would die IS immoral. You're a sicko, and you know it, or you wouldn't post as a coward.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Those regulations are already in the pipe, 3D printable weapon or not. Their agenda is to disarm you, to weaken you, and to control you. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[flimflammer]

You really are a pretty bad person.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

dodging regulations.

Regulations like "Juden kann nicht besitzen Schusswaffen." Stop being a racist Nazi.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

If there isn't a legal way to get weapon, we'd do like criminals get them illegally. If there is a need there is a market. This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[bdwebb]

What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.

The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.

The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)

Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Opportunist]

He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree. By your logic, pretty much everyone from Heckler, Koch, Smith and Wesson should go to hell for making people kill each other.

Let's be sensible for a moment. If at any moment in the future such guns surface where they could even REMOTELY be linked to any kind of terrorism, you'll soon see how police starts peering around for people with "suspicious" cargo. Even WANTING a gun that cannot be detected is illegal and punishable, and unless you spent the last 2 months or so under a rock, you should know that it is trivial for certain three letter goons to find out who downloaded what blueprint for a 3D model.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Psion]

It's odd that I'm saying this again, but have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

People who attempt to infringe on others' rights to self-defense, security, and private property deserve as much sympathy as any of the dictators who disarmed their citizens and then committed acts of genocide against them.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

I'd really like if every decision had consequences.

My take is that if we had some sort of enforced karma, you'd be getting a lot of consequences. Wishing death or grievous injury on someone merely because they build something. What's a fitting "consequence" for that sort of pathology?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Yes, I have. It required conditions that are pretty much unique in the history. Like recently demobilised soldiersm with actual combat experience, and a local government that couldn't call for military support.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

I'd just discovered a way to make a plague lethal in 80% cases, using only kitchen tools and 3d printer! What a wonderful discovery! I hope everyone makes a vial of it - for self-defense, of course. Or for duck hunting.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[realityimpaired]

So... one of the core tenets of libertarianism is "don't be an asshole", and people actually expect that this would work in the real world?

That's almost as naive as the Marxists....

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

I'd just discovered a way to make a plague lethal in 80% cases

Ah, yes, another Slashdotter who flips out when anyone disagrees with him. Well, carry on.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[realityimpaired]

I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force.

You seem to think it's self-evident that there actually would be millions of armed citizens to take up arms against the government....

A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary.

Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved. When you can download the plans to make a weapon from the Internet, and buy the ammunition for said weapon from Wal*Mart, that greatly reduces the chance that the people doing so will know what the hell they're doing.

For the record, as a former member of the military, I feel that gun control is a good thing. Weapons that are not being properly maintained, and with which you don't maintain proper proficiency are dangerous, to you and everybody around you. When the general population has the same requirements for recertification and the same penalties for not properly maintaining their weapon that I had when I was in the army, I will support them having the same access to weapons I had.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Dare nMc]

It is merely a manner of force multiplier. If guns were not helpfull, we wouldn't have soldiers carrying guns in the army, we would only have tanks, and planes when we attacked. If you watch Black Hawk down for example, eventually that plane, tank, whatever is going to go down in a bad spot. Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment. Same in Iraq, Afganistan, etc, it required a huge force of 100,000+ troops to take on the guns, without the proliferation of guns, it would have taken less than 1/10th that. In the USA with most every base in the middle of a major city in the USA, if you have a majority of the population against the military side, and 10% of the population armed, the military wouldn't be able to hold onto many of the bases in the USA for long. Without a secure base, the army couldn't take the US population on at home. Guns alone wouldn't cut it, but explosive are easier to improvise... I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

This shows a disdain for the will of [the?] people.

Just like Jews who hid from the Nazis, and just like the Germans who hid them. Don't be a racist Nazi.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

Non-aggression is enforced with violence by those who support it. Arbitrarily defining "aggression" makes all systems exactly the same, and from my discussions with libertarians about non-aggression, there is no alignment that indicates any consistent definition (specifically around pollution and abortion).

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. I'd really like if every decision had consequences.

What a childish load of crap.

You'd like it right up until the moment when you were on the receiving
end of the consequences. At that time you'd cry like a baby and beg to be
exempt. But there would be no mercy, nor any exemptions.

Still a fan of your fairy tale world ? Talk is cheap. Put your self on the line
and it all looks different very quickly indeed.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"Using..."

I think I'm liking this Guinness person. Maybe we should name a beer after him. But what's a "beaumont"?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary."

See... there's just this LITTLE flaw in your logic here...

Maybe lots (not a "majority"... read the recent polls) of people are not too dissatisfied with government right now (not the same as "satisfied" at all... again read the polls). BUT... IF there were military in the streets shoving those people around, you can bet your ass that would change in a heartbeat.

There are 100 people in this country for every military man, and there is a gun for each one of them. PLUS, you can also bet that most of the military would NOT be out there trying to fight their own people for some tyrannical President. So the odds just get worse from there.

No, the U.S. military would not have a snowball's chance in Hell against its own citizens. Count on it.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Dare nMc]

>This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.

I am not sure I agree. One that can only shoot a few times, I agree. But this is the early stage. Since not all shot projectiles are for killing, I used a .22 cal cartridge to attach my deck to the block walls, and concrete slabs (uses a blank to shoot a nail.) Also other things, like balloonists have been using helium balloons for wind speed/direction, cheap plastic gun to shoot parachutes to hundred feet would be much quicker and cheaper.
Granted I think the point of this effort is an attempt to say, the gun is out of the bag, we have to assume everyone at all times has one. So lets forget about stopping people from having them, and concentrate on the root cause of the violence. I am not sure that is completely possible, but I do think getting to a reasonably low fatality rate from guns is do able, even when they are prolific.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved.

It DOES mean training is involved. That's what "well-regulated" means. However, not being the historian that I am, you don't seem to understand what the Second Amendment actually says.

The Founders were terrified of the necessity to have a standing army ("well-regulated militia"), that being THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, as their recent experiences taught them very plainly (as well as history... they were no dummies).

What the Second Amendment says, in Modern English, is this: "Because we have to have an army ("sell-regulated militia") to defend the country, we are going to let THE PEOPLE be armed, to protect us from that army".

And yes, that IS what it means, despite all the rhetoric from left-wing gun-controllers. It's a historical fact.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

s/sell/well

Bit of a Freudian slip there. You're welcome, Halliburton.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[ArcadeMan]

No, all these assholes are doing is pushing toward crazy laws such as "owning a 3D printer makes you a terrorist".

Remember we're talking about politicians and law makers, they don't care if a lathe can make a better gun, they will still outlaw 3D printers anyway.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

From your link: "what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are."

From your incorrect correction, I think you don't understand what non-aggression is.

Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.

Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they should go to hell. Did they? No clue, but they are not innocent.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

It required conditions that are pretty much unique in the history.

In other words, a valid counterexample to the claims you've been making. Any other such example will also have conditions that are pretty much "unique in the history" by whatever criteria you happen to be using.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."

I don't hear a big THANK YOU for providing this completely novel and entertaining rhetorical technique to the world. Now, nobody has to ever be wrong again.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

This shows a disdain for the will of people.

Is there a problem with that?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

It doesn't change whether you are wrong, just whether you'll listen to reason.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[spitzak]

This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it. To make the militia work the people needed guns (the guns used in the start of the revolution were personal weapons).

My personal opinion is that the gun rights argument existed even then, resulting in an unreadable weasel-wording of the amendment to try to make both sides happy.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."

Or it may be that the original posters' disagreement is genuinely somewhat irrelevant. I note that this is just a disagreement about semantics of the term, "non-aggression". Since a meaning was given and not just the word, we can just use the meaning rather than the word, even if the word usually has some other connotation.

We don't get in a tizzy, if say someone uses the mathematical or physics versions of the word, "field" (for a particularly notorious example), rather than the normal English usage as an area of open land. So why do so when libertarians use "non-aggression" in a particular sense? You aren't required to accept that definition outside of the scope of the discussion.

Going back to Joining Yet Again's assertion that libertarianism is "no different" in outlawing whatever isn't popular enough, there is the principle of so-called "non-aggression". From the previously mentioned Wikipedia link:

The non-aggression principle is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. [...] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individualâ(TM)s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

So outlawing an unpopular activity (which isn't itself aggression) is initiating aggression by the above definition and hence, counter to libertarian tenets, contrary to the original assertion.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Opportunist]

Only because it's a copying tool that could threaten "important" (I'll use the term loosely here) industries.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.

In other words, their hands aren't at all bloody. But then I measure "blood" by actual harm caused to people, not by whether or not I get a blowhard upset on the internet.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

So outlawing an unpopular activity (which isn't itself aggression) is initiating aggression by the above definition and hence, counter to libertarian tenets, contrary to the original assertion.

If I agreed with everything you said, it's unrelated to the initial point. When someone's right to travel conflicts with someone else's right to property (someone buys land surrounded by his neighbor with no explicit right-of-way), the traveler must initiate aggression to leave his property. That means the libertarians would be "forcing" him to initiate aggression by the arbitrary asignment of property ownership above the right to travel. If the right to travel was higher, then the circling property owner must let the traveler pass, or would be the aggressor if he blocks the right to travel.

NAP doesn't define aggression, in that abortion isn't a settled issue either. Is it aggression by the mother to get the abortion, of aggression by the state to prevent her? It's like the statement "a house should have a foundation." It's true and unarguable, but still useless if you get into a disagreement over slab vs pier and beam. The devil is in the details, and that's why I pointed out "what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are." from the link he provided. Until there's agreement on rights, aggression is undefined.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[JaredOfEuropa]

People living in a country with strict gun control laws will also benefit, if they desire a gun for home defense. Not legal (in those countries), but morally that hardly counts as mischief.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree.

So I guess it's also morally impeccable if I print out detailed plans on how to create bombs from pressure cookers and put them on the Internet for everyone to read? Right? As long as I don't put the bombs into someone's hand for him to go off on a killing spree, there is no harm done and I'm clearly in the moral clearwater.

No wait, guns are totally different of course. They can be used for self-defense, so every kid at school should be able to print out his own gun.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

Well said. The "core tenant" is an unclear proritisation of a vaguely delimited set of rights, and is a fine illustration of what happens when you start by observing a practice and build a theory to justify its extremes.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[geirlk]

In a pinch, and maybe in rural areas, pressure cooker bombs can also be used for self defence.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Good comment.

I will add this for the benefit of all the gun grabbers who try and justify their madness about "you can't do anything against a modern army with a gun" blah blah blah.

If an armed citizen presents no threat to tyranny, then *why* is the state so intent on preventing us from being armed?

One need only ask themselves that very question, to understand this whole subject.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

You seem to think it's self-evident that there actually would be millions of armed citizens to take up arms against the government....

Really I was commenting on the effectiveness of improvised weapons more than the state of things in the USA, but yes, I suspect the number would hit millions if the government were to get completely out of control.

A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary.

Again I'm not advocating an armed uprising, just commenting on the effectiveness of improvised weapons. For all the problems with the US government, I don't think it warrants armed revolution.

Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved. When you can download the plans to make a weapon from the Internet, and buy the ammunition for said weapon from Wal*Mart, that greatly reduces the chance that the people doing so will know what the hell they're doing.

Agreed that you've got nothing without training. Not that it really matters, but I'm not American.

For the record, as a former member of the military, I feel that gun control is a good thing. Weapons that are not being properly maintained, and with which you don't maintain proper proficiency are dangerous, to you and everybody around you. When the general population has the same requirements for recertification and the same penalties for not properly maintaining their weapon that I had when I was in the army, I will support them having the same access to weapons I had.

Reasonable points from a safety perspective, but it assumes no (need for) armed revolution, which was the whole point of the Second Amendment.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

If an armed citizen presents no threat to tyranny, then *why* is the state so intent on preventing us from being armed?

One need only ask themselves that very question, to understand this whole subject.

No, I don't think so. You've made quite a leap. You've not addressed the central pro-gun-control argument that it can keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

In a lot of countries, like the UK, gun control generally works pretty well at preventing gun-crime, by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't work perfectly, but pretty well. It would be a problem if the people wanted a revolution, but I don't think that's what politicians are thinking.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...

To my knowledge this has never happened in the Middle East. The military would still have a tremendous advantage in training and coordination.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

Can you remind me which military has given something beyond token resistance to the US army lately?

We're talking rebels, not 'military'. The Middle East and Northern Ireland are the proof that modern militaries won't have an easy time occupying countries.

Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living hell.

Off-duty?

But if you're thinking about using terrorist weapons with impunity, then have you ever thought about an army that doesn't have modern rules of engagement?

In a hypothetical armed rebellion in the USA, the rules of engagement would very much apply. I don't think the USAF would be ok carpet-bombing their own country to get at rebels, assuming they were ok with domestic deployment to begin with.

Oh, I get it. You'd prefer to kill toddlers, perhaps even primary school children. That'll surely help your cause.

You think that kind of idiocy will help yours?

Like I said, I'm not a gun-nut. I'm not even really pro-gun. I'm just pointing out that this particular anti-gun argument - that they'd be useless in a revolution - is nonsense.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Why? Don't you think that a home-made infectious plague is a tool to control government? If no, then why?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Yes. If you decide that your clique has a monopoly on the public opinion and should use weapons to enforce your view, then what stops other groups from doing it?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[dadelbunts]

What regulation is he bypassing? You are legally allowed to make your own guns. So i would love to hear what regulations he is bypassing for his MURDER WEAPONS!

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[LF11]

The actual difference between any of those is whether normal people have access to guns. If not, it is tyranny. If so, it is liberty.

Karl Marx believed in individual ownership of guns. Russian communism did not. One is tyranny, the other....has never been attempted on a large scale.

Guns make the only difference that matters.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[FatLittleMonkey]

Read Article 1, Section 8. The US Constitution clearly differentiates between an army and a militia. I interpret that as meaning that the militia is the non-standing part of the army, ie, people called up on short notice to support the government, maintain the peace, defend against bad guys.

(Otherwise I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd. It means, "Unfortunately, we need to let the government have the power to call up a militia, coz it's a dangerous world, so we need to make sure towns can defend themselves against the misuse of that militia." Which means it has nothing to do with home defence and hunting, everything to do with military-grade weapons (back then cannons and barrels of gunpowder, today RPGs.) Indeed, I interpret most of the original BoR in that light. The first is the right to agitate and organise against the government. The second to defend against pro-government militias.The third to prevent government intimidation, by housing troops in anti-government towns. Fourth to allow you to secretly plot and plan and pass messages between your groups. The fifth to prevent you from being jailed for not confessing or informing; to prevent perpetual re-trials/jury-shopping; to prevent unjust seizure of property, etc etc. The sixth to prevent indefinite detention without trial, secret trials and kangaroo courts. The seventh to limit the power of pro-government judges. The eighth to prevent excessive punishments/bail for political reasons. And when interpreted in that light, it becomes obvious how far the US has drifted away from the Constitution. And I say all this as a latte-drinking wishy-washy Guardian-reading left-wing pro-gun-control moonbat.)

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[bkr1_2k]

Really? Useless for hunting or self defense? How many shots do you think you need to defend yourself or take down a deer? While I think the people pushing this are a bit misguided, these are far from useless for "standard" purposes that people buy weapons.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Yes, it's useless for hunting. It has very bad accuracy and can't use a large-caliber ammo. Or do you hunt dears that are tethered to a tree?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[FatLittleMonkey]

If you watch Black Hawk down for example, [...] Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment.

Have you watched it? Ignore the incompetence of the commanders, just the events on the ground. The opposition militia did not "tear into the US". About 100 US troops held out in an unprotected, unplanned crash position, in an urban area, with no resupply and little support, against several thousand armed opposition who could bring in more men and supplies at will. And they did so with 50-1 kill ratios. And this was the first such battle since Vietnam, with the whole command structure notoriously incompetent to cope with the unexpected. (Today's US military has had over a decade of experience against such militias, IEDs, RPGs, ambushes, etc.)

If anything illustrates Cyberax's original point, it's the battle of Mogadishu.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[dj245]

This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it.

Militia implies some level of organization of people into groups for the common goal of defending against something. "there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people" is a ridiculous argument, of course you can distinguish between them. A member of a militia meets regularly or irregularly with fellow citizens for the purpose of of mounting a defense against something or someone using weapons. At the time the constitution was written, organization was at a local level, and then the local organizations joined up with other local organizations as needed to form larger groups.

"the people" should refer to ordinary citizens going about their business. "The people" can belong to a militia, but a militia is not "the people"; it is an organized group of "the people".

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[bkr1_2k]

How many military veterans do you think there are that own guns? I'll tell you; as of 2011 it was over 21 million former military members. Let's assume the standard 36% (as of 2011) distribution of gun ownership amongst those veterans. That's what 7 1/2 million trained users of guns? The US military currently has approximately 1.5 million active duty. Now, consider that many, if not most, of those military members would not fight against US citizens and suddenly the likelihood of a massacre of armed civilians by the military seems much less likely. Hell, a lot of the military would fight for the civilians.

Training will never be a problem, even on military grade weapons.

As far as "terrorist tactics", how exactly do you think this country was founded? Welcome to reality, smaller "civilian" forces have overthrown governments throughout history. Just because it is currently the "most powerful military" doesn't mean the US couldn't be overthrown by a citizenry of armed amateurs. Mostly because many of them simply wouldn't be amateurs.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

If you decide that your clique has a monopoly on the public opinion and should use weapons to enforce your view, then what stops other groups from doing it?

So disrespect for public opinion means I want to use weapons to enforce my view? I didn't know that. I better stock up then.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[rally2xs]

In the event of a tyrannical government, circumventing regulations may be just the thing those people need.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

And yet I have to say, so what? Your argument is not the "initial point". In a society of conflicting interests, there will never be enough agreement on rights to completely eliminate these sorts of problems, but we can come to broad agreement on a lot of that and greatly reduce the conflict.

And that leaves us with a core principle of libertarianism which is counter to the assertion that libertarians would be as much regulatory meddlers as anyone else.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[FatLittleMonkey]

BUT... IF there were military in the streets shoving those people around, you can bet your ass that would change in a heartbeat.

Except that "those people" they are pushing around would be those who are already against the government. That's the only reason troops would be in the streets, to "keep the peace" against violent anti-government protesters. Or to round up "terrorists" and confiscate their weapons (long titillating list of their stockpiled arms/explosives-ingredients/etc released to the servile media.) Would the US public tolerate that? Look at the acquiescence to the TSA, to warrantless stop-and-frisk, the media support (both "liberal" media and Fox News) for universal NSA surveillance, and against Snowden, the public tolerance of police abuses against the Occupy protesters, and the routine support by court juries for officers who abuse their power, etc etc etc....

Even tyrants don't put actually put troops on the streets unless they have to. And the people in your country seem to tolerate abuses of power that the average tyrant would love to be able to get away with without resistance.

You are picturing a sudden overthrow of government or declaration of dictatorship. You should be picturing a gradual build up of abuse of power. A slowly boiling frog, and you are already in the pot being trained to tolerate heat.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[FatLittleMonkey]

That doesn't make the assholes the enemy. It just makes them painfully clumsy at fighting the enemy. (And I agree that they are clearly idiots who will end up getting 3d printers licensed and killing the entire maker-movement.) The enemy are the politicians and media who go along with the ignorant hysteria over "z0mg 3d printed guns".

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[jafiwam]

You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.

You are quite stupid and misinformed. Or, just unwilling to put in the effort to not be (as evidenced by your posting anonymously).

Aside from NFA items, there are NO regulations banning the creation of firearms at home for personal use. If have the tools, means and knowledge, I can build myself a gun.

It's particularly efficient to just create the serial stamped part (which currently, is the part that holds the fire control group involving the trigger and associated pins and in some cases the hammer, firing pin, or hammer actuator).

So, for example, if I choose to make an AK-47 pattern rifle out of an old shovel and parts, there is NO regulation or paperwork or anything like that. All I need to do is fold it, cut it, and drill it and I have the frame, the serialized part that I would have to do paperwork to purchase. The ONLY thing unusual about this is instead of machining a few parts and buying the rest, the guy is printing most of them and adding a few springs and hard points.

Not revolutionary, not new. Just a simple small step in the progression.

It's not bypassing anything. It's "making it out of plastic". Sorta like how some people think adding "on the internet" creates a new and novel thing, your opinion is equally myopic and retarded. This is an OBVIOUS next step. Just because you don't understand how the world works is no reason to panic. Just stay off the freeway (that's the big driveway with the white and yellow lines painted on it).

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[jafiwam]

People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.

They deserve as much sympathy as a terrorist bomb-maker.

Yes. Yes young padwan. Let the butthurt flow through you.

Face it gun grabbers, you lost. People saw through your pantywaste crap and dumped your ideals by the wayside.

I have the feeling, from your ilk, that you have quite a bit of sympathy for the terrorist bomb makers as long as they are muslem.

You are expected to think here, go away, you don't fit in.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Dwarfgoat]

Bypasses what regulation, exactly? In my state (VA) and in most others, there is no "regulation" of firearms beyond that limited by the National Firearms Act of 1986 (which includes restrictions on machine guns, short-barreled (sawed-off) rifles and shotguns, and "destructive devices" like grenades, mortars, RPGs and the like). It is only a small minority of US states that require any sort of licensing or registration of firearms. In most places, it is perfectly legal to build anything you like--out of any materials you like--as long as you do not sell (transfer) it to another person.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[dryeo]

The summary wasn't clear about where he was located but as far as I know there aren't too many countries that allow unrestricted ownership of weapons.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

No, but you're saying in effect that the use of weapons is OK to enforce minority views.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[bkr1_2k]

No, I don't hunt at all. I do know people who hunt with small caliber rifles, though. And once there is some more development caliber won't be an issue either. Accuracy will certainly be improved as well. The fact that you overlooked the self-defense aspects speaks volumes to your particular bias. Of course your bias is pretty obvious on this position, as I'm sure you intend it to be, so it's not really a surprise.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Rifles and handguns are useless for hunting or self-defense? WTF!

Those two purposes cover the design goal of the overwhelming majority of rifles and handguns.

Even if you were talking only about 3D printed ones, you are still way off base. Many modern hunting rifles are being built with as much polymer as possible to reduce weight and to better handle the elements. Have you ever actually looked into hunting to know that much of it happens in wet conditions? Do you realize the harmful effects wet conditions can have on the metal parts of a gun? Why would hunters not be looking for improvements in that area and why would that not be a legitimate desire?

Saying that the legitimate desire of a hunter becomes illegitimate because someone else may repurpose it for illegitimate purposes is like saying that all human communication is illegitimate because some people like to use communication to plan "evil" deeds.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Who said any kids should be allowed to do that?

I would think most honest geeks would love to see how far 3D printing can go in the realm of the engineering involved. How many gun-haters here realize the strength requirements being worked on and what kind of advances solving them entails for other areas requiring high-strength materials?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Are there any countries that allow unrestricted ownership of weapons? I happen to live in the US and have never heard of a single legal jurisdiction within the US that allows unrestricted ownership of weapons. A quick search will show the honest seeker that fact.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Assuming that there won't be a significant portion of the military siding with the civilians is probably a bad mistake. The US military requires its officers and enlistees to swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and to obey all lawful orders. They are actually taught that they may be given unlawful ones and reminded about the Nurmberg trials.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

If ever comes a day when you can't go to your local shop and buy food you will be thankful for that weapon that allows you to hunt and kill your food. Or that allows you to defend yourself from those that would just as soon kill you for what you have than spit on you.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Kind of. Guns must be capable of withstanding much greater pressures than ICEs. ICEs must be capable of withstanding way more friction than guns.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

While that's a noble sentiment the fact is that a criminal with a gun would likely shoot him just to watch him bleed out if for no other reason than for something to do.

If everyone in the world shared his mentality we wouldn't need weapons and war and conflict would never have even existed on this planet.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

Not easy to get rid of?

I live in a coastal town. Not a 15 minute drive from the ocean front, I could hop in a boat motor out 3 or 4 hours offshore and toss it's gone forever never to be seen again.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[executioner]

" These guns are made specifically to make dodging regulations easier. This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it." dodging which regulation exactly, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to create/make their own guns as long as they don't sell it. The will of the people ? People want access to firearms for many reasons this just makes it easier for someone with the available cash to purchase a printer and materials to create something for themselves.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

By that rationale god should also go to hell for the countless millions of people that used rocks to bludgeon each other to death prior to having guns.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[kwbauer]

Everywhere I have ever lived, it is illegal to hunt "dears". Doing so gets you charged with domestic violence, murder or both.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

Also in the event of revolution.

Thank you for seeing the benefit of having knowledge like this.

Just because you know how to make something doesn't mean you will use it to blow something up. Some people want to know how stuff works and why.

The day could come that the knowledge becomes useful, the day may not.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[X0563511]

I wouldn't use this to hunt deer but you might have some luck with varmints.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[g0bshiTe]

Or carry it illegally.

I'm in VA too I know it's an open carry state, I've carried before no license not needed. Police say nothing I know I was in front of one at 7-11 one day while carrying.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[sjames]

They are CURRENTLY useless for hunting and self-defense due to the limitations of 3D printing. With improvements in the technique and potentially through design workarounds we might get to a point where a 3D printed weapon become legitimately useful tools unless we let people go nuts and ban the whole thing.

I am against killing people with guns, baseball bats, kitchen knives, rocks, pointy sticks, and anything else including bare hands. I recognize that removing all of those items from availability is impossible. I recognize that removing one or two of those things will just result in substitution.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[skiman1979]

I hope this rifle explodes and kills him. I understand the motivation to go and explore the limits of 3D printing. But rifles and handguns? They are useless for hunting or self defense. About the only thing they're useful is terrorism and/or dodging regulations.

Nice use of violence to drive your point that these are supposedly only good for violence...

Your logic is also flawed. You claim these are useless for hunting or self defense, but they are useful for terrorism? A "terrorist" would use these to (possibly) kill someone, yet a "normal person" can't use this for self defense (e.g., possibly killing someone)?

Also, this is a prototype. The technology will get better in time, then we'll be able to use it for hunting, self defense, and everything else.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[spitzak]

What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is. You are implying that the reason for allowing people to have guns was to *fight* "the militia". That is an unusual position to take.

I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[bkr1_2k]

See, now I was just trying to overlook the fact that the plural of deer is deer. I wasn't even getting into the misspelling part of it, but there you have it.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

I agree that Russian communism, especially after Lenin, was nothing like Marxism (*), but guns don't make as much of a difference, since psychological manipulation is even more important than physical oppression, and someone bigger than you probably has access to a weapon much bigger than yours too.

(*) It's curious that we make a big deal out of the fact that Stalin called his tyranny "communist", but make little noise about e.g. Mussolini calling his tyranny "corporatist", even though, as fat bastard Benito said:

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

Being something like what the US has today. Perhaps one day the US will get over its hatred of "communists" and realise that the problem with the USSR was that it was a threat - anything else is detail, and the US has dealt with regimes far worse, providing they have agreed to cooperate.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

dodging which regulation exactly, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to create/make their own guns as long as they don't sell it.

[citation needed]

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Hognoxious]

Sharing the same principle is one thing, but apparently it's not the only thing.

Or why is there a four century gap between the two becoming practical?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[dadelbunts]

Im guessing he lives in the US. And in the US you can make your own firearm as long as you dont sell it. They call them zip guns. They are legal wether made from random pieces of metal, in a CNC machine, or 3d printed. You cant sell or give them away to people, but you can definitely make them for your own use.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[dadelbunts]

You can own almost anything you want in the US if you have the proper licenses.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Dare nMc]

Not sure if your talking usa or in general. This is how syrian rebels took over. Bengazi had a similar path recently. Many us outposts have been lost in Iraq, but the us main bases were well seperated from populations.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[LF11]

I understand that you don't think guns make that much of a difference, and I agree with you that psychological manipulation is far more effective than physical oppression. After all, the Holocaust would never have been allowed by the German public without Goebbel's anti-Jewish propaganda campaign using Edward Bernay's template for public relations. However, in that particular case, the Jews were categorically disarmed before they were rounded up into cattle cars.

I am unaware of any widespread act of genocide that has been successfully waged against an armed populace. The vast majority of genocides have been conducted against utterly (or mostly) disarmed populations. The Holodomir, the Holocaust, the Communist Chinese genocide, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the nightmare in Zimbabwe, even the Serbian campaign against Kosovo, all were conducted on unarmed populations.

I personally believe that history tells us that widespread, unregistered gun ownership is the antidote to genocide. If true, then gun ownership is a single factor that could have prevented the Communist genocides in Russia and China. What do you think?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"Except that "those people" they are pushing around would be those who are already against the government."

That's STILL a flaw in your logic. Because, see... genuine treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government.

Forgetting exactly that was what led people to bring Hitler to power. And no, that is not a joke or an example of Godwin's Law. It is a simple historical fact.

A large part of the German population felt that patriotism meant loyalty and obedience to Government, not to the people and to the rule of law.

"You are picturing a sudden overthrow of government or declaration of dictatorship. You should be picturing a gradual build up of abuse of power. A slowly boiling frog, and you are already in the pot being trained to tolerate heat."

I am picturing nothing of the kind. I am picturing an increase (gradually OR sudden) of the kind of government we've been actually seeing under Obama.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

The "so what" is that NAP without defined heirarchy of rights is *no different* from any other system, where the rights under NAP could be prioritized to mimic the other system. And I've never seen a system that couldn't be fit with creative rights-ordering.

When the rights are unordered, NAP is undefined. When your "core principle" is undefined, it says much about your belief system.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

As someone else mentioned in this thread: look up The Battle of Athens. The one in the U.S. in 1946, not the others (Wikipedia lists at least 4 events called "Battle of Athens".)

Ex-GIs did exactly what I was talking about: fighting a government and police that had become corrupt and out of control. If this were to happen on a larger scale, which side do you think most of our military would be on? The side of their own People, or the side of a tyrannical government? Based on your own comment, it appears that YOU would be on the side of the government. That puts you in a minority. (It would also violate your oath to uphold the Constitution.)

And no, it would not take a sudden overthrow. It would only take more of what Obama and friends have provably been doing. Haven't you been reading the news?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[DrStoooopid]

hypocrite much?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is."

Yes, that's a valid point. The problem is that "the common argument" is often not a scholarly argument as a result of research. "The common argument" is... well... common. It generally comes from people listening to propaganda on one side or the other, rather than actually picking up a good (well-researched) history book.

I'm not pointing fingers at anybody in particular; this is true of a great many issues. Often the things you hear and see on the news and in the press has little to do with actual history, and is far more related to somebody's political agenda. I wish it were otherwise.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly."

That, too, is a "common argument". And yet those who make it consistently fail to point out anywhere else in the Constitution that the Founders "garbled" their words.

The interpretation I gave is historically accurate. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." (a well-regulated army is necessary for the defense of the country) "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]

Remember that they had just fought off the army belonging to their own government in order to win their freedom. There is no way in Hell they were going to turn right around and say "We have to establish a Government army and give it all our weapons in order to remain free." The very idea makes no sense.

"The people" appears elsewhere in the Constitution, too. And IN EVERY CASE where it appears, it clearly means you and me, Jane and Joe Public.

Nowhere in the Constitution did they use phrasing that means one thing in one place and something else in another. It is a very consistent piece of work.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"I interpret that as meaning that the militia is the non-standing part of the army, ie, people called up on short notice to support the government, maintain the peace, defend against bad guys."

The difference is in the phrasing "well-regulated".

By definition, the general populace is not "well-regulated". Otherwise, it would not have been necessary in Section 8 to say "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia..."

There is a difference between "the general militia" which in other historical documents is described as "every able-bodied man between 14 and 50...", and a "well-regulated" or "disciplined" militia. It was a standing army that so terrified the founders, which is WHY they defined the general militia to be just about everybody.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Dare nMc]

Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns? Can we agree a thousand armed civilians, can take on and make progress against a hundred US soldiers, without reverting to terrorist attacks against the families? I agree the odds are against them, it will be 50:1 losses, without armed civilians it would be more like 10000:1. Recap, no civilian arms vs US army, terrorist style attacks only. Armed civilians against army, 50:1 or 100:1 deaths when out numbering them 100:1. I would say that a few thousand cannot control a few million when just 10% of the civilians are armed. The 1% better armed cannot be confident of victory. take away the arms from one side, then we know who wins.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

Interesting. Can you link me to a relevant source?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"In a lot of countries, like the UK, gun control generally works pretty well at preventing gun-crime, by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't work perfectly, but pretty well. It would be a problem if the people wanted a revolution, but I don't think that's what politicians are thinking."

The UK's own official firearms statistics put the lie to this claim.

According to official government figures, immediately after the last major "gun grab" by the UK in the late 90s, gun crime went WAY UP, and stayed that way for something like 8 years. To a level that was 50% or more higher than it had been for quite a few prior years.

Further, the later gradual reduction in crime cannot be attributed to the gun laws, because crime was going down in every other major western country, too, at about the same rate. INCLUDING in the United States, where during that period per-capita gun ownership actually went up.

And further yet: you have to be careful about how you interpret the statistics. Because (again, according to official government figures from both the U.S. and the UK), in the UK there is actually 10x the amount of gun crime per gun (not per person) than in the United States.

So what does that mean? Well, for one thing, it means that the image of Americans as crazy murderous gun nuts is not even remotely related to reality. Citizens of the UK are far less responsible with their guns. THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do.

(To be clear: I'm not accusing them of being crazy and murderous. But to say many of them are guilty of "the pot calling the kettle black" is a gross understatement.)

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

And further yet: you have to be careful about how you interpret the statistics. Because (again, according to official government figures from both the U.S. and the UK), in the UK there is actually 10x the amount of gun crime per gun (not per person) than in the United States.

To be expected, which ever side of the fence you're on.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns, right?

For that reason I don't think it's fair to say THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do.

The gun-grab statistics are somewhat persuasive, but it remains that British criminals generally don't have guns. Knives, sure (despite that it is, in general, illegal to carry one).

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Joining Yet Again]

I think that men with bigger guns would have demanded the handing in of firearms before executing a genocide.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"For that reason I don't think it's fair to say THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do."

My only point was that it's a hypocritical argument. I don't really think any of them, as a whole, deserve the label "crazy and murderous". The majority of people in both countries are civil and responsible.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[spitzak]

Nonsense. None of the other amendments have a preliminary "explanation" sentence. Your interpretation would be equally served by truncating it to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which would match the wording of all other 9 amendments.

The word "well-regulated" is the problem: even 200 years ago, the idea of fighting back against an enemy was never called "regulating the enemy".

I certainly agree that the purpose of the amendment is to allow anybody to have guns, not limiting it to a "militia". This is because it was obvious the militia would have guns (and at that time the only practical way to do this is for the members to take the guns home with them), thus there would be no need for the amendment. However it really does seem that there were opponents to this and that is why the weasel words were added at the start. It does seem that both sides of the argument today want to believe that silly political games did not exist back then, but they did.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

And I thought the "core principle" was "small government" and NAP is a justification for eliminating taxes, or otherwise a derivative of the "no taxes" core principle.

Further, the basis of rights is property in libertarianism. Yes, I've been sent the pile of bad youtube lectures about how it's personal rights, not property, but they all were a justification for property rights, not relating rights to personal rights.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Anonymous Coward]

Live by the sword might e applicable if this man where killed in a freak 3d printer accident

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Wootery]

My only point was that it's a hypocritical argument. I don't really think any of them, as a whole, deserve the label "crazy and murderous". The majority of people in both countries are civil and responsible.

Sure, but my point was that Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns goes both ways.

In the USA there are plenty of responsible, legal owners of handguns. There are very few of those in the UK, as civilians may not legally own them; the only British civilians in possession of handguns are those who disregard the law, so they're almost bound to be used for crime.

To put it another way: in a country where everyone has a gun, one would expect that the proportion of guns used for crime would be lower than otherwise, as you are now weighing the number of criminals against the full number of the country's non-criminals. Civilian gun ownership is much more common in the USA than the UK, so we'd expect to see that a higher proportion of UK guns are used for crime.

(I'm assuming of course that your "per gun" was including all guns, legal and illegal.)

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Jane Q. Public]

"There are very few of those in the UK, as civilians may not legally own them; the only British civilians in possession of handguns are those who disregard the law, so they're almost bound to be used for crime."

That's a very interesting point, and it deserves some real consideration.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[FatLittleMonkey]

Can we agree a thousand armed civilians

Try five thousand. Probably more.

Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns?

Not just "guns", AK-47s plus RPGs to bring the helos down. And a perfect storm of events in their favour. They had the US troops trapped, cut off, and pinned down. The US troops were inexperienced at this kind of firefight, not one of them had any prior experience (the last major firefight was in Vietnam). The opposition had elevation, supply lines, and over an order of magnitude more men, in an area they had total control over, against a US command structure that was caught completely flat footed and crippled by conflicting rules of engagement. So in a perfect storm, with every odd stacked in their favour, the opposition ultimate lost; they failed to overrun the US position and prevent their eventual rescue. In 24 hours of fighting, they killed just 18 Americans, versus hundreds of their own killed (and the US estimates were as high as 1500 deaths plus 3000 casualties.)

[Everyone treats the battle as a disaster for the US, and yes on the command side (and political side) it was, but I've always seen it as the purest example of how US troops really perform in combat, in a way that is rarely seen even in wars like Iraq. And the result is breath-taking. Makes Frank Miller's "300" look like a piece of crap.]

Since then, the US has not only changed training and equipment, they've been hardened by a decade and a half of precisely that kind of war; against opposition themselves hardened by years of fighting. You'd be facing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, with a perfect supply chain, plus whole new classes of weapons from X-25s to drones. And you'd lack things like RPGs which are necessary just to balance the odds, let alone proper anti-air/anti-tank weapons. And you'd be learning your own tactics and training from almost scratch.

The great citizen revolution would be over in hours.

The only way you'd have any hope of winning would be when thousands of unarmed protesters are gunned down by security forces loyal to the government, live on international TV/internet, and amid international condemnation, a major chunk of the US military (such as a full Marine division) comes to the aid of the protesters, putting themselves between the security forces and the civilians (and basically daring the security forces to cross the line). Eventually leading to senior military commanders basically staging a coup, forcing the President-for-life to stand down or flee into exile, and, you hope, holding UN supervised elections with the intention of restoring the constitution and ending martial law.

OTOH, any armed protesters or resistance-groups will be put down and used to justify further loss of liberty, and will reduce the active opposition to the government amongst civilians. And US troops wouldn't support a violent resistance, because the moment the resistance kills its first US soldier, the entire US military and most of the civilian population would unify against you, no matter what they thought of the government.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

No, you're the one saying that. I'm not the confused one here.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

The "so what" is that NAP without defined heirarchy of rights is *no different* from any other system, where the rights under NAP could be prioritized to mimic the other system.

You're making the very sketchy assumption that you can model any political system with just the right collection of rights sorted in the right way. I don't buy it.

Further, NAP doesn't appear in a vacuum. Libertarians do have some ideas about orderings of these rights.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

Further, NAP doesn't appear in a vacuum. Libertarians do have some ideas about orderings of these rights.

Yes, and they are in a bad order. Which is why every conversation of NAP turns into the "you don't get NAP" answer, as this thread started with. No, no, we get it. It's just that you ordered the rights hierarchy in a manner that gives priority to the wrong rights. Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face (just to pick one of the many where everyone agrees on NAP, but disagrees on the order of rights).

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Cyberax]

Uhm, other people in this thread mentioned (multiple times) that guns can be useful against a tyrannic government. Of course, they'd be the ones to define what "tyranny" is.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Yes, and they are in a bad order.

This is one of the annoying reasons why it's such a pain having any discussion with you. Drop the strawmen. You haven't yet given a justification for this claim.

For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.

Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face

That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.

So as I see it, you're comparing violation of a basic principle to a behavior that would be granted by libertarians under generous circumstances, calling both of them "rights", and then claiming that libertarians would support the violation of the basic principle over exercise of the behavior.

That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.

I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.

That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.

And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.

That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.

You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.

I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Well, they aren't talking with me. As I noted before, you're the only one here telling me what I'm supposedly saying - without crediting what I was actually saying.

Plus, using guns against a government (whether tyrannical or not) is not the same as using guns to enforce a minority view. In the latter case, your choice of targets can be far more broad than appointed agents of the State.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.

Wait? You're complaining because libertarianism by its very nature isn't a monolithic belief system? Too bad.

As to the strawman thing. I get you don't think you're doing it. But you don't get to characterize libertarianism only by considering the most fucked up 5% or whatever of libertarianism, and not fall into the strawman trap.

And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.

Again, what did I say about unprovoked assault? It's not just aggression but the initiation of aggression. One doesn't have to consider whose property you are standing on.

Second, so your body and personal space isn't property? Do tell.

You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.

The Libertarian party can be just as hypocritical as it wants to be. But again, libertarianism and in that case, the Libertarian Party isn't a single unified belief system. Many people believe many things.

Further, as a political party, the Libertarians might all favor toll sidewalks or whatever, but never advocate for those relatively extreme measures because it just shoots them in the foot politically.

I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.

Then do so and stop wasting your breath here. I would suggest starting to "take reality" by dropping those strawmen.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

Many people believe many things.

Like I said, no true Scotsman. I could see it coming. When a self-proclaimed libertarian says one thing, why should I take your word over theirs? You deflect the hard questions and refuse to discuss anything other than your brand of libertarianism, which doesn't seem to match anyone else's.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Like I said, no true Scotsman.

That's an erroneous application of the fallacy. For example, if I said "All true Scotsmen are male natives or nationals of Scotland or men of Scottish descent", then I would be right, not echoing the fallacy, because that is the definition of Scotsmen.

When something is part of the definition, such as NAP is of libertarianism, then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

Yes, and when a male national of Scotland does not fit your stereotype, then you exclude him from the group. As I said, no true Scotsman.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Yes, and when a male national of Scotland does not fit your stereotype

As I said, definition not stereotype.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

Then define it in an objective manner. All you've done is dance around about how every self-proclaimed libertarian but yourself isn't one, so long as they don't agree with you.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[khallow]

Then define it in an objective manner.

This has been done numerous times. For example, I prefer the minimal government version: libertarianism is an advocacy for a society with minimal governance sufficient to uphold individual freedom and property rights, the carrying out of contracts and other such agreements or cooperation, and the resolution of conflicts between members of the society (via the NAP).

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[AK Marc]

I prefer the minimal government version

So do I, that's why I support government programs like Head Start. They result in the smallest possible government. But libertarians argue that taxes are force, so they should only be used for functions they personally approve of, and "small government" is an ideal, not a goal or measuring stick.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[geirlk]

Having knowledge is a good thing. Putting it to use to mine your property with pressure cooker bombs is something else entirely.

Also, that whole "I got to be ready to defend myself against the govnement" attitude is detrimental to the ownership you actually _should_ feel towards your own government.

Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[SuperKendall]

What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!

Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!

Re: Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And only fires 14 rounds before breaking. Aren't those that want to ban guns always arguing for smaller clips? (I know they're called magazines but when you get your gun knowledge from pop culture...)

Just on a technical level...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I think what's needed here is a way to infuse the printing medium (ABS?) with strands of Kevlar, or something similar.

That, and then printing the contact parts of a slide-action with a Teflon/Kevlar composite, and you might have something.

Re:Just on a technical level...

[GameboyRMH]

It wouldn't really be 3D printed then would it? It would be a composite hand-formed with robotic assistance.

Re:Just on a technical level...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand, I think. There are already many different kinds of composite micro-fibers that are being used today by adding them to the epoxy in epoxy/fiber composites - they add tremendous strength and reduce the weight of a finished piece. I'm suggesting adding these microfibers to the plastic in the 3D printing cartridges - that is, adding them to the plastic before it's extruded and spooled into a cartridge.

No hand-forming required - just a different 'ink' formulation.

In other news...

[djupedal]

Syrian rebels have requested more resin to help in their recent push...

Re:In other news...

[CanHasDIY]

Huh? Why would they need 3D printed guns, when the US government is already supplying them with mass manufactured ones?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Thatsthejoke.jpg

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 3D printed guns are the new hotness, and every young freedom fighter knows that if you're not using 3D guns now you'll never get a job with the next Syrian regime.

Now if somebody could just figure out how to get Node.js to shoot a gun....

How is this useless for self-defense?

[SuperKendall]

With even just a single shot, it would be really useful as an emergency backup gun to have around the house somewhere, in the same way people sometimes keep uber-cheap crappy cell-phones in cars for emergency use only.

It doesn't replace a real gun but it's not in way useless as a tool for defense.

If you really want to dodge regulations there are lots cheaper and easier ways to do that with real guns.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Cyberax]

Backup for what, exactly? If you can buy a gun then you certainly can buy another one for backup.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

If you can afford x, you can afford x*2 is a pretty obviously false for a huge range of x.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep a back up cell phone? Terrible example.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[SuperKendall]

Backup for what, exactly?

For your main gun, which is usually locked up in the house somewhere.

This gun is something you could easily keep in secondary locations, like a barn or a car. You wouldn't really care if it got stolen, unlike a real gun, because it would be nearly useless in committing a crime but could be the factor in stopping a crime or protecting yourself. It also would be nearly rust-proof unlike a real gun.

Even if you could afford a better gun for other areas sometimes a cheaper low-maintenience replacement makes sense.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Cyberax]

Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal. So as I've said - it's only useful to break law. Not for anything else.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[SuperKendall]

Why? A back-up cell phone is useful in case yours is damaged in a crash, or simply runs out of battery at the wrong time. It doesn't require a contract as any cell phone can dial 911.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with being careful.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[SuperKendall]

Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal.

Even if the law where you are requires the guns be secured, that just means you would need a locked case in the barn (or keep in the locked trunk of a vehicle in the barn). It's still far more useful than having to go all the way back to the house for a gun.

So as I've said - it's only useful to break law.

And as I've demonstrated handily, you are totally wrong (you couldn't even say anything about my car example, which is perfectly legal as long as the gun is stored unloaded in a locked trunk.).

Give it up, your arguments are getting more an more pathetic. You obviously know nothing about guns except to fear them, because it's what you have been told to do... you certainly have no clue about gun laws.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Cyberax]

What's so magical about cars that you can't buy and store a normal weapon there? This printed shit,is likely to cost more than a simple rifle or a gun. So yes, this gun is useful only for terrorists.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Cyberax]

Guns are cheap. Pretty much everyone who can afford one gun can afford two guns. Especially since they often require gun safes.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its actually terifyingly cheaper.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

If guns are only useful for evil purposes, why aren't you so adamant about disarming governments? I mean, which entity do you think has killed more people? Average Citizens? Criminals? Or governments? You only seem to only be bothered by one of the three aforementioned entities having access to them...if guns are as bad as you insist, they should be the last thing governments should have access to.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete idiot when it comes to this topic. Flush your programming and make an attempt to put some rational thought into it for a change.

Re:How is this useless for self-defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes - that's what we want - guns so cheap and easy to make you don't even bother keeping track of them anymore. Keep one in the bottom drawer in the kitchen, one next to the night stand, one next to the soap in the shower (you are vulnerable there), and you can have one hanging with your keys just inside the front door - all loaded and ready to go just in case the government decides to invade your house or whatever it is you guys actually worry about.

And of course the result - more gun accidents, more family members tragically shot as familiarity breeds complacency - is your five year old nephew or niece going to understand the difference between the "freedom maker mark V" and the toy guns they play with at home?

The concept of leaving loaded guns lying around just in case you happen to need one is a scary one indeed. If you really need a gun to protect yourself in your private life then 1. I feel sorry for you, 2. If you life depends on it, then buy something reliable and 3. never stop respecting guns for what they do - put you, or anyone who might be able to access the firearm, one moment of inattention or bad judgement away from tragedy.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[bkr1_2k]

Please provide references for gun safe requirements for ownership of guns. Either way, your argument still doesn't dispute the GP post's argument.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[Dwarfgoat]

Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal.

That depends entirely on where you live. For instance, not the case at all, here in VA. Leave 'em where you like. ...now, doing so, I will agree, is horribly irresponsible....but not necessarily illegal.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense?

[kwbauer]

Cyberax must live in one of those nutjob anti-gun areas. I've never lived in a state with a lock 'em up requirement.

Either way, he is still talking out of his ass.

if you can afford x, you can afford 2x+Y is pretty obviously false for a huge range of x and y, especially since for some reasonable values of x (in our context) y > 5x.

I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?

Re:I don't get it.

[avandesande]

My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

Re:I don't get it.

[nurb432]

1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.
2 - Just because you can make one here out of steel legally doesn't mean you will be able to tomorrow. It also takes more skill and effort to do it the 'right' way.. Anyone can download a file, press "print" and yank a finished object out of a printer.
3 - If you can manage to print things that can take the wear and tear of being a weapon, it advances the technology for use in other fields too.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jaime2]

Gun control is a big issue in the US. As soon as people can print their own reliable firearms, the very concept of gun control will become either laughable or Orwellian. Either outcome would be big news.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes the people involved feel important, who otherwise don't make much of a difference in the world.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on /.? Article contains one or more of the following key words: 3d-printed arduino raspberry pi bitcoin

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will get much less confusing for you, I think, once you stop mistaking interest for obsession.

Re:I don't get it.

[dbc]

This.

Re:I don't get it.

[tsotha]

I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?

At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.

The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.

What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

Re:I don't get it.

[cusco]

There are a couple of things going on here. The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round. Ammunition production has pretty stringent quality control and all the hard work of figuring out the forces involved has been done already by the manufacturer.

The other is just the normal tweaking of the government, where if there isn't a rule in place people will push the issue until a rule is made.

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

I don't think so? It's already trivially easy to build a deadly weapon. Gun control exists to stop an arms race by discouraging people in general from thinking they need to carry guns (both criminals and law-abiding), not to make it impossible to get a gun. In some areas this works, as you end up with very little gun crime - e.g. urban UK - maybe in others (remote?) this doesn't apply, as law enforcement is so far away? I am not sure there's a hard and fast rule...

Re:I don't get it.

[GameboyRMH]

if they become trivially easy to manufacture then 3D printing gets controlled tighter than guns ever were.

FTFY.

Re:I don't get it.

[Required Snark]

It changes the barrier to entry. At the current moment it's not a big deal, but as 3D printers become ubiquitous it will become much easier to get access to a lethal weapon.

These guns will be cheap to make and not easily detectable by metal detectors. They are effectively one use disposable weapons.

So you and your gang want to do a drive-by or robbery. Just print up some guns, get some bullets, and while leaving the scene of the crime throw the guns out the window.

Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises. Plastic printable guns make this possible again. They also enable guns getting onto aircraft. Or in schools. Careless people will print them up for "self defense", and we will see even more children die by accidental gun violence.

I expect that these weapons will be attractive to alienated people who would have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally. Say loner teens who feel bullied, or bullies in school who want to be able to flash some heat for intimidation.

Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

Re:I don't get it.

[couchslug]

"What's *new* here?"

Page Hits driven by delicious Fear and craving for tasty Drama.

Nothing else.

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

Isn't it fairly easy to build a deadly zip gun? And I assume today already a gang could buy a CNC machine for less than the cost of a decent 3D printer if they wanted to roll their own guns, as they would have been able to for years? (Do they? If not, why not?)

The thing about metal detection is interesting, though. I suppose this is certainly increasing accessibility to metal-free guns. But that's not game-changing - it just means more intrusive methods required to detect guns.

Re:I don't get it.

[EvanED]

Why does it have to be Orwellian?

Current law bans marijuana which is easily grown yourself, and while I pretty strongly disagree with said law I wouldn't go nearly so far as to decry it as Orwellian.

Re:I don't get it.

[Grant_Watson]

I don't know about Britain (where carrying pistols was hardly unheard of in the nineteenth century), but I don't know that I've ever heard this as an argument for gun control in the U.S. It seems an odd argument: It would definitely work to make carrying a weapon more difficult for the law-abiding, but the only way to make it less desirable would be if it indeed made it nearly impossible for criminals to get access to weapons.

And British gun control has led to knife crime and to forms of knife control that look downright silly from this side of the pond.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.

Or, if you are mostly just looking for attention, like most people these days, "Because it will cause an outcry", is the best and only reason required to do anything.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

CNC machines- even old ones, but if you're looking for good quality, four axis devices suitable for really fine machining- cost generally between fifty grand new and five grand used (if you're lucky). A NEW 3D printer is a lot easier to get (you don't have to haul several tons of delicate metal tools to your gang hideout, for one) and will cost you far less.
That said, lower end CNC machines are a lot cheaper, but still run you thousands upon thousands of dollars. A weapons-quality 3D printer will run you about three grand new, if my pitiful research into the topic is any indication (I haven't done enough, and I've got a really nice CNC machine, so I've no inclination to get a printer)

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.

Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also carrying a knife; 2. A gunshot is more likely to cause a fatal injury than a knife wound.

It doesn't matter much whether guns are easy to obtain. What matters is whether your opponent is likely to have a gun.

Re:I don't get it.

[thomasw_lrd]

Comparing gun control in Britain with gun control in the US is like comparing British and US comedy. If Honey Boo Boo is funny for the US, it must be good enough for the British.

(If you don't know who Honey Boo Boo is, count your blessings. I've seen one commercial, and it saddened me that I was an American).

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure the easiest way to get access to a gun is to buy one at Walmart.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iit's already pathetically easy for criminals, people with anger issues, the barking-mad insane and alienated people who would^XXXXX/should have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally to get guns already (based on body counts), I'm not going to lie awake worrying about flash mobs with guns.

Re:I don't get it.

[dbc]

What you have pointed out is that a knife is terrible as a defensive weapon. A knife the the hands of a 240 lb rapist is a nasty offensive weapon, a knife in the hands of a 95 lb assault victim isn't much defense, because it is only good close in. Give the victim a handgun, however, and she has a stand-off weapon than can equalize the situation.

As you say, no one wants the situation to get more violent than necessary, so the rapist will very likely make a quick exit as soon as the gun is shown.

Re:I don't get it.

[Freddybear]

I'd say that drug law enforcement has long since crossed the line into Orwellian. And it's leaking into other areas of law enforcement as well.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

What will change that equation is tighter gun control laws. Most people don't have reason to do it now is because gun access is easy, even a felon can buy a gun at a gun-show or on the street even if he's not legally permitted to own it.

If gun control gets effective then gun printing will become a lot more popular, especially if it gets to the point where 3D printers are as ubiquitous as laser printers have been for the last 10 years.

Re:I don't get it.

[MobileC]

Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.

They're called armies.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the cops are the ones escalating gun violence. That's not a troll. It's actually a thesis of mine. Not entirely intuitive, but I bet there's something to it.

I suspect that if cops stopped carrying guns, or only had non-lethal weapons, that the majority of criminals would overtime, too. Most "gun crime" is really some thug getting arrested who also happens to have a gun in his possession. And they keep guns because the cops set the psychological standard for force escalation.

In most parts of the world, even violent drug gangs make do with knives and beat downs, even where guns are relatively easy to access. It's not like getting a gun in Indonesia or Vietnam, for example, is difficult. Same thing in many parts of Brazil and South America in general, although this is changing as American- and Mexican-style violence levels are adopted by both cops and criminals.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or... you know... just use pepper spray. Interestingly, California effectively bans handguns *and* high-strength pepper spray. I still can't figure that one out.

(By banning handguns I mean that in the most populous areas--i.e. where anybody cares to live--it's impossible to get a carry permit.)

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think bullets (including cartridge) is going to be made from anything but metal anytime soon, so the metal detectors should still prove effective.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If nothing else, ABS 3D printed guns may even decrease the number of metal detectors. Since now (as ~50 years ago) everyone has to be pat down as they enter rather than idly scanned.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As you say, no one wants the situation to get more violent than necessary, so the rapist will very likely make sure to also have a gun.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon."

While this might be all good philosophically, one thing we *know* is that it doesn't work in the U.S.

While no cause-effect relationship has been firmly established, correlations are clear: the areas of the U.S. with the strictest control of firearms are consistently the areas with the highest gun crime (including murder). And this is not just over 1 or 2 years, but over the many decades that the government (not some hack on one side or the other) has been keeping statistics on it.

And that also holds for changes: in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up. In areas where the restrictions were relaxed, firearm crime went down. There have been a few minor exceptions here and there over the decades, but that is all they have been: rare exceptions.

But I should also throw in: this is not unique to the US. After the last "big" firearms ban in the UK (and this is according to UK government published statistics), firearm crime went WAY UP and stayed way up for something like 8 years, before it began to settle back down again. And that later downturn in crime cannot be responsibly attributed to the gun laws, because crime in most of the other "modern, western" nations was going down also... including in the U.S., where gun ownership went up over that period.

So don't misunderstand me: what you say may have some merit. But the hard numbers don't lie. Firearms restrictions in the US do not deter crime.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

California effectively bans handguns *and* high-strength pepper spray. I still can't figure that one out.

The Racist Liberal Democratic Party doesn't want citizens to be able to defend themselves. Then citizens have to rely on the state for defense. But more likely retribution since the police will always be many minutes away when every second matters.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Current law bans marijuana which is easily grown yourself, and while I pretty strongly disagree with said law I wouldn't go nearly so far as to decry it as Orwellian."

Why not? According to the historical record, Federal marijuana laws were first put in place as an attempt to control the "uppity" hispanic and black populations, who were, at the time, the vast majority of marijuana users. For that reason, making marijuana illegal gave authorities an easy excuse to harass and arrest blacks and hispanics. Thus the government-sponsored films "Reefer Madness" and "Assassin of Youth", which were two films intended to pound into peoples' heads that good worthy white folks should not use marijuana.

If that ain't Orwellian, I don't know what is.

Re:I don't get it.

[dbc]

And if the victim can't legally obtain a gun, the rapist will not bother to illegally obtain a gun? Bad guys will have guns no matter what. Why, heck, they might 3D print them.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always chuckle when people point this out. "In some areas this works, as you end up with very little gun crime - e.g. urban UK "

Gun crime is not the only violent crime and the UK has the other types in excess. The average UK rate per populace as a country for violent crime is on par with major cities in the US. 80% of crimes in the US occur in the cities, go outside of the them and it plumates. That is pretty sad and disengenious to hold up the UK as some shining example, when they have crime rates on par with cities like Chicago and Detroit.

Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

Re:I don't get it.

[dbc]

Well to be precise, there is a list of handguns you can buy, but in general, you are correct that in most of the populous counties of California a CCW permit is simply not available since it is at the discretion of the sheriff. In my county, Santa Clara, sheriff Laurie Smith used to grant them. The process was simple: you called her office, a deputy told you where to send a $5000 check to her campaign fund, and her office called you back to bring in your paperwork when the check cleared. After federal investigators quizzed her about the practice, no CCW permits have been issued except for a small handful of well-connected wealthy people such as the CEO of Cisco.

The OC spray limit is on the size of the container, I believe, not the strength of the OC. OC is not much better than a knife -- it's a close-in tool that has a high chance of blowing back on the user. I had a conversation with a Cal State Forrest Ranger bear control expert about that. Even as an expert with training and relatively frequent practice (he worked in a park with a large bear population), he was about 1 for 3 in getting both himself and the bear at the same time.

Re:I don't get it.

[DerekLyons]

The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round.

No you don't know exactly what stresses a round will generate. While you *do* know how much powder is in a round, the way the stresses manifest themselves are heavily dependent on the design details of the weapon and the nature of the material it's made from. Nor is it particularly useful test, because a material that will hold up well to shock loading isn't necessarily one that will hold up well to long term stresses. (And that's without getting into the difference between tension and compression.) Etc... etc...

Printed guns are popular because of the 'Jamie want big boom" factor, and the illusion that it's a useful test.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fabricating zip guns manually or with a CNC machine are skilled tasks which require creativity and intelligence, something gangsters aren't exactly renowned for.

Printing a zip gun out of plastic takes plugging the printer into a USB printer, double-clicking on Gnu/Zipgun.3dpart and clicking print.

This is the flaw intelligent people make when pointing out security measures that are put in place. Not everyone is as intelligent.

These are kids/teenagers/young adults who dropped out of highschool to sling drugs who want to "giss dat guy who jacked ma boi a wet tshirt", having turf wars over a drug trade which for the average slinger pays "about minimum wage, worse when yuse count the time in the pen". These are the people creating street violence, not people who know how to "tram a bed" on a milling machine or what feed ratios should be used when cutting different metals.

Have a look what the Australian Police Comissioner said when they test-printed a 3d-gun and it exploded, "We're worried someone might download these plans, print them out, try and fire this weapon and end up in hospital"(paraphrased)

When I was in school, there were kids homebrewing coil guns and spud guns, and it's a worry those same sort of kids today will try and print a gun and end up hurting themselves. I know it's going to happen. You know it's going to happen.

Re:I don't get it.

[tlhIngan]

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

Actually there is. Though it's unlikely to ever happen in the US.

And the thing to do is change the culture of violence - the US is defined around guns - it started through war, it propagated through war. War is basically in every American's blood because the entire US history is filled with it. Even in peace times we hark back to the days of the wild west where it was you and your gun.

Basically the gun has been gloried as this magnificent thing, instead of the hunk of metal and wood that's really just a plain old ordinary tool. Heck, you guys put the right to own a gun in your Constitution!

It's why Canada, for example, does have gun control laws, yet is also awash with loads of guns (both legal and illegally smuggled from the US) but doesn't have as high a per-capita shooting rate as the US. It also helps that the laws mean long guns are legal, but handguns tend to be more heavily restricted.

It's a purely cultural thing - Americans end up believing guns are cool and awesome to have and one is powerful with a gun. Canadians get taught to respect the gun, because it's useful as a tool for gathering food. Plus I suppose, the less violent nature (for many Americans resorting to violence is the first thing to do, while other countries it's usually very last thing).

Then there's the whole "self" thing Americans are fond of, while other countries are more "community" oriented. The former is good in that everyone is self-reliant and not dependent, while the latter is that people can rely on others and that no, you don't have to hunt, defend, and do everything yourself, when you can delegate out the defense to one group, the hunting to another, etc.

In the end, the problem is social, and probably unfixable because the US has a history of violence and has grown up believing violence is a good thing.

And yes, I'm saving up for the rifle I want, after understanding that yes, it's perfectly legal to own and use in Canada. Once I get my license.

Re:I don't get it.

[bkk_diesel]

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

You could consider trying to make your society less prone to violence.
As a non USian, I am constantly astounded by how scared and angry you can be as a people.

The problem is not guns, it is your culture.

Re:I don't get it.

[DigiShaman]

Like I've said. The printing press was a revolution. 3D printers will cause one!

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Look at places where weapons are completely unregulated.
There are places in South America where the criminals won't even bother with threatening you first. When average Joe started wearing guns to protect themselves the criminals started to shoot first and rob later.

Guns only work as a defense against criminals as long as they aren't common.

Re:I don't get it.

[tsotha]

I don't think so, because you can make a better gun more easily using a few tools and plumbing supplies. Suppose the design improves and you can print a gun that lasts for a hundred rounds. Why wouldn't you make one out of metal that's more reliable? Guns are really easy to make.

Explosives are easy to make as well. Easier than guns, in fact. You can find recipes all over the internet to create high explosives using household items. Hell, you can even find recipes in US government publications. By your logic homemade explosives should be pretty popular. But they're not, are they?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

> it just means more intrusive methods required to detect guns.

Next thing you know, they'll be frisking old ladies and children, and touching your privies, when you try to board a plane!

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about demonizing 3D-printing technology so it can be outlawed/regulated. The government what all industry to be centralized into big corporations that are easy to control and tax.

Re:I don't get it.

[dave420]

That's simply untrue. The "bad guys" only have guns if they are required for their nefarious occupation, and if the risks of them having one are outweighed by the benefit of having one. As we've seen in the UK, that means it's incredibly rare for the "bad guys" to have guns - so much that the vast majority police don't even have them when patrolling.

Re:I don't get it.

[dave420]

The US has porous borders between areas of different gun control - of course that doesn't work. Gun control only works when the porous borders are within areas of similar gun control. As for the UK, the amount of crime is relatively pointless - the interesting thing is the downturn in the number of murders. Most people would be far happier having a knife pulled on them and live to tell the tale, than simply being shot.

Re:I don't get it.

[dave420]

Compare the number of deaths. Whatever the UK did, it's working. "Crime rates" are meaningless when the types and severity of the crimes are not comparable.

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

Yeah, this has been my reflection in this thread: that there's a difference between a country where each party expects that the other won't be carrying a gun, and a country where one party expects that the other will have a gun. The latter will considerably alter criminal behaviour - if you start banning guns, expectations won't suddenly change, so you will inevitably have a short period where only the criminal comes to the fight with a gun, and some will notice and take advantage of the power imbalance. But, in the long run, things settle, as the criminal learns that making things more lethal than they need be is likely not to his advantage.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Sources Please.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up.

Yes. Because when the assholes who will only have the their guns "taken from their cold dead hands" subsequently get caught with them, that is a firearm crime.

Dumbass.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you post links to the stats you are talking about? Would actually be interested to see them.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the US is defined around guns"

No we are not. Our constitution is based on the primciple of individual liberty and limited government. Note that I said "limited" government, not NO government, they are very different things, but that's another topic.

"It's why Canada, for example, does have gun control laws,[blah blah, blah] mean long guns are legal, but handguns tend to be more heavily restricted."

I've some news for you genius, here in the US we also have gun control laws, long guns are generally easier to get and hanguns more heavily restricted. You don't seem to have a really full understanding of what you are talking about. Do you know that Mexico has really stringent gun control laws also?

"Americans end up believing guns are cool and awesome to have and one is powerful with a gun. Canadians get taught to respect the gun"

Hey genius, isn't Canada in "America"? So aren't you all "American" too? Just checking.

"Then there's the whole "self" thing Americans are fond of, while other countries are more "community" oriented"

Americans again. I take it you mean to be talking about US citizens and how we, as opposed to the entire rest of the planet, are "bad" and "mean" and "scary" right? Because of our constitutionally protected natural right to keep and bear arms? Right? Because... fuck you. Is that about it? Here's a clue; please try and be specific in the future, think for yourself and back up your statements or reasoning with logic and facts, mmkay? If you do this, you may start to sound like you are older than 13. Are you 13?

"when you can delegate out the defense to one group, the hunting to another, etc."

Oh god, not again. Hope that works out for you genius. Here's a question, do you know how long it takes for the police to respond to a 911 call (or whatever the fuck you Americans up in Canada have for an emergency number)? No? Go ahead, look it up. Most localities will have such a statistic around somewhere. What is it where you live? 30 seconds? A minute? 20 minutes?

http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp

Just a bit of advice from a fellow American, think about that number very hard. I sincerely hope you never need to make that call and wait that time for help. Oh wait a tic, I forgot....

"probably unfixable because the US has a history of violence and has grown up believing violence is a good thing"

Yea, there is that. You know the US is a pretty scary place, do us all a favor and stay up there, safe, in America.

Re:I don't get it.

[JaredOfEuropa]

1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also carrying a knife; 2. A gunshot is more likely to cause a fatal injury than a knife wound.

1) Holds true for guns as well: most muggers carry them to threaten, rather than for defense against victims who also carry a weapon. I suppose a mugger is likely to upgrade from knife to gun if he suspects his victims are likely to carry either.
2) Not so. Several studies show that gunshot wounds are about as likely to kill as knife wounds inflicted in the same area (vital organs), with the exception of shotgun wounds (which are far more lethal). And consider also that a gunshot wound in a non-vital part of the body (arms, legs etc) is rarely fatal, but a knife can easily cause deadly injury with the victim often bleeding to death before help arrives. Knifes are far less likely to cause collateral damage i.e. injure an innocent bystander.

I think you are somewhat right about the escalation factor: if people are more likely to carry a gun (or knife), criminals will start carrying them as well. Even so, if it comes down to hand to hand combat (with whatever weapon) with a criminal, compared to gun vs. gun, I prefer the odds that firearms give me.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This I don't get. If it's likely the intended victim has a gun the to be rapist will surely arm himself with one also. Gun in your pocket won't help a bit if someone is already pointing one at you. It might actually make the situation worse if the forementioned pointer sees it and panics. He can't really turn away and run now, can he? Don't think he will want to take a bullet to the back. That leaves two options, 1) shoot the victim and flee. 2) take the risk af demanding the gun from the victim, risking a shootout if the victim is stupid or too brave.

I just don't see a situation where arming everyone helps the victims a bit. On the other hand, if few enough victims and criminals have gun, there will be encounters where the robber isn't armed, but the victim is, and the robber gets stopped. If the robber is armed, and victim isn't it's not going to end up any different whether it's a gun or a knife. Unless the victim is a really good runner, in which case he might get away from a knife wielding robber.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that also holds for changes: in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up. In areas where the restrictions were relaxed, firearm crime went down. There have been a few minor exceptions here and there over the decades, but that is all they have been: rare exceptions.

This tells nothing. Legalize cannabis and cannabis crimes will pretty much drop tp zero. Firearms crime includes carrying w/o permit and such things, which more where the laws are stricter.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like you have to use metal with the cnc machine. Still don't see much plastic cnc milled guns around. They would be way better than printed ones, as you can use better plastics.

Re:I don't get it.

[geirlk]

"and if the risks of them having one are outweighed by the benefit of having one"

So true.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Re:I don't get it.

[Type44Q]

My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

My guess is it's really about manipulating the public's view of 3D Printing; if (when) 3D printers become effective and trivially inexpensive, they represent a monumental game changer and will level the playing field by empowering the little guy in much the same way that the printing press and invention of the firearm did. The Powers That Be are obviously going to try and prevent this at all costs.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

(If you don't know who Honey Boo Boo is, count your blessings. I've seen one commercial, and it saddened me that I was an American).

I unsuspectingingly watched the first episode, then the rest of season 1 waiting for the punchline. When I realized there was no punchline, I died a little inside. Realizing that June and Sugar Bear get to vote saddens me. Realizing that they represent a decently sized portion of our population saddens me more. Realizing that they debased themselves and their children for $20K has me curled up in the bathtub, à la "crying game" . WTF happened to Americans? Did we stop adding iodine to salt?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow........this is some serious generalization going on here.

It is interesting that you claim Americans believe guns to be cool and awesome and that one is powerful with a gun, and yet the only people I've met here in America that are like that are the ones that do not own guns, or that obtained them illegally. Most firearms owners have a healthy respect for what a firearm is capable of, understand that it is a tool (not just for gathering food, however), and would rather defuse a situation than have to use a firearm, even in self defence.

No sane, rational adult believes violence is a good thing. It is necessary when all other forms of protest have been exhausted, and you do have to be mentally prepared for it to reach that level or you've already lost.

Most people who CCW are well aware of their responsibilities. Unfortunately, the only ones the media like to report on are the few rare occurrances where someone's lack of responsibility result in injury or death.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.

Please, provide links for the equipment in the shop you discuss that can manufacture heavy machine guns for a few thousand. For 10K I might be interested in the shop and the FFL...

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this is already possible without 3d printers, the barrier to entry you speak of doesn't exist. A quick trip to Home Depot will net you everything you need to make an "undetectable plastic gun". So why has your bleak future not happened already? The same reason why there haven't been mass courthouse stabbings with "Undetectable plastic knives" even though people have been sharpening plastic bits for decades. It's scaremongering without any basis in reality.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> Guns are really easy to make.

Not as easy as downloading a design and pressing "print."

Re:I don't get it.

[drinkypoo]

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

True, and complete bullshit, in order. There are any number of things we can do to reduce violence. We could reduce economic inequity, for example, or address the many failings in our public education system. Hell, we could prevent the government from telling lies that lead people to eat the wrong foods — diet is extremely relevant to health which is relevant to learning which is relevant to violence.

We don't need to do anything special to reduce gun violence, because it is falling even though gun ownership is rising in America. We "only" need to reduce inequity and improve education, which will reduce all kinds of violence.

Re:I don't get it.

[LoRdTAW]

"and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.""

Its not that the other guy has a larger gun but that the other guy probably has a gun as well. The gun levels the playing field. Muggers target people who they perceive as non threatening and will easily give up their money, the knife is fear insurance. Guns aren't as cheap or easy to obtain and if you're caught with an unlicensed gun you're up shits creek. A loaded illegal gun will get you a lot more jail time. I have heard of people sentenced according to the number of rounds in the gun; 15 rounds = 15 years in the can.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, and complete bullshit, in order. There are any number of things we can do to reduce violence.

Yeah, but all those ways would, in American eyes, mean a reduction of liberty. Americans have a nasty habit of unwilling to trade liberty away for anything.

We don't need to do anything special to reduce gun violence, because it is falling even though gun ownership is rising in America.

Ah, but if violence is falling, that means we don't need more equality or education either. There's no correlation, let alone causation.

Furthermore, another thing that's been decreasing all this time is liberty. So if any correlation can be made, the reduction in violence is a demonstration of America trading liberty for security. So really, even if you can reduce violence, America doesn't want it. America wants more violence. Instead of taking guns away, the more American-appropriate solution is to give people guns to defend themselves ("the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun")

Re:I don't get it.

[dj245]

My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

You can make a trivially easy to manufacture firearm if you designed a bunch of innocuous-looking metal pieces too.

First you design a thick-walled tube which uses a specific grade of steel, with threaded ends. You could call it a pressure-washer lance if you wanted. You could specify tight tolerances on the diameter so that "the water flow pattern normalizes." For obvious reasons, you would have to go without rifling, but I'm sure many companies would be willing to make this, no questions asked.
Then you design yourself a device capable of making an indentation on another piece of metal. Obviously it would need some sort of lever to operate. Maybe you call this a hardness-testing device. You could make the sampling end of it threaded "to thread onto test pieces". A bit more complicated, but I'm sure somebody would make it for you.

Etc. Gun parts only look like gun parts because they are very specialized to be gun parts. And guns look like guns because obfuscation is not a consideration, but ergonomics is. You could easily design a bunch of obfuscated gun parts which result in a functional gun, but the individual parts do not look like gun parts. It would probably be a funny-looking gun but it would avoid all the inherent safety problems of making guns out of plastics.

Re:I don't get it.

[dj245]

If gun control gets effective then gun printing will become a lot more popular...

Why? Gun control is about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have guns. If it becomes effective I can't imagine that Bob the liquor store thief will invest in a 3d printer, learn how to run one, and carefully print out his gun before he heads out and knocks over a store or two. If there is somebody printing out guns en-masse to sell to such people, they might as well make them out of metal. If a skilled worker can make a gun in his backyard with no complicated equipment, it is trivial for such people to make LOTS of guns using a couple of lathes and some milling machines (CNC or manually-operated). 3d printing of guns is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't, and never will, exist.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If it becomes effective I can't imagine that Bob the liquor store thief will invest in a 3d printer, learn how to run one

Its like you didn't even read what I wrote. If 3D printers become as ubiquitous as laser printers have then it isn't a case of investing in one just to print guns.

Compare it to counterfeit money. Now that everybody and his brother has a printer, the rates of home-counterfeiting have skyrocketed because it is just so easy to click "print" and get a passable $5 bill.

Re:I don't get it.

[SuiteSisterMary]

It's awfully easy to build a bang stick with parts you can get at home depot (and a shotgun shell, but I guess we're talking America, so that's easy enough to get at Wal-Mart.)

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises.

Aside from this 1970 incident, citation please. The legality of mandatory metal detector screening at courthouses wasn't really established until State v. Harzog, 635 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1981), 11 years later and that ruling didn't really settle it until State v. Aguilar, 352 N.W.2d 395 (1985).

Precisely, which incidents do you speak of? Metal detectors have basically been fixtures in court houses without significant legal challenge since 1985. How did they prevent gang gun battles in the courthouse? Did you watch the video? I will take a cheap kevlar vest and a broken, junk, 1.5" barrel, Italian knock-off from China, cheap ass .22 against that any day. Much less a S&W 10mm and Class IIIa body armor.

Doubts? I accept the challenge. Me in a Class IIIA vest+Model 1076+10mm Hornady XTP 180 gr JHP and you with any currently 3D printed weapon in a courthouse. Any bets on the outcome?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are of course willing to provide the sources for these hard numbers?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you can make plastic cartridges and projectiles the same metal detectors will detect, at the very least, steel cased cartridges & bullets with steel cores, if not much more.

Re:I don't get it.

[AmiMoJo]

Citation needed. Not just for firearm crime, but the murder rate.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, almost no-one is actually proposing banning the sale and ownership of guns. (This is what's known as a strawman, by the way.)

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. . . so much misinformation and fail in the above post. It is readily apparent that Snark has a Freudian fear of firearms. . .

Print up guns and throw them away for a drive-by? Yeah. . . just go ahead and leave evidence lying around for the cops to pick up. That will make their investigation go so much easier and faster.

Even if the parts of the gun are all non-metallic, the ammunition itself is still metallic, thus still will trigger metal detector alarms. This negates your claim of firearms sneaking through secure areas.

Teens who feel bullied? Solve that problem by taking away guns! Yeah! That's it!!! Your sloppy attempt to tie together two separate issues shows your ignorance on social issues altogether. Instead of treating the root cause of an illness, you are all for chopping off limbs and removing organs. Way to address the symptoms and not the issue.

Children dying from accidental discharge? How about being an actual parent and teach your kids right and wrong, instead of relegating that duty to TV?

Flash mobs with guns? Pro-gun demonstrators are already doing that on state capitols across the US, and with no injuries nor deaths reported. Not that news media cover these events to begin with since it does not fall in line with their own ulterior motives.

Get your facts straight before attempting to comment on something you have no knowledge of.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

While no cause-effect relationship has been firmly established, correlations are clear: the areas of the U.S. with the strictest control of firearms are consistently the areas with the highest gun crime (including murder). And this is not just over 1 or 2 years, but over the many decades that the government (not some hack on one side or the other) has been keeping statistics on it.

Indeed, the questions are: #1 Is there a causal relationship? If true, then the question is: #2 Which way does the relationship go? Do strong gun laws cause increased gun crime? The argument here is to cite the small number of places that have gone for requiring everyone (except conscious objectors) to have firearms and then note these places have low rates of gun crime. Switzerland is a favorite, but a few localities have tried it in the US and the reports I've seen are that gun crime did in fact decrease.

But I should also throw in: this is not unique to the US. After the last "big" firearms ban in the UK (and this is according to UK government published statistics), firearm crime went WAY UP and stayed way up for something like 8 years, before it began to settle back down again. And that later downturn in crime cannot be responsibly attributed to the gun laws, because crime in most of the other "modern, western" nations was going down also... including in the U.S., where gun ownership went up over that period

A better one to cite is the far greater amount of knife crime in the UK. The UK has been making knives illegal. Sure, larger knives can work pretty well as weapons, but if s police officer sees you carrying one unsheathed in public the US, they're pretty likely to have a conversation with you looking for signs you've got a nefarious purpose even though they can't arrest you for the knife.

Re:I don't get it.

[Hognoxious]

80% of crimes in the US occur in the cities, go outside of the them and it plumates.

I'm not familiar with that word, but from my knowledge of Latin, French and Italian it would appear to mean "grows feathers".

Perhaps that's why you have so much crime; you're all as thick as two short planks.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Gun control only works when the porous borders are within areas of similar gun control. As for the UK, the amount of crime is relatively pointless - the interesting thing is the downturn in the number of murders. "

Actually no, this argument doesn't hold water when you look at the real numbers. It isn't interesting at all. In fact it's likely to be completely meaningless.

Back in the late 90s, when the UK made its last "big" gun restrictions, firearms crime (including murders and other violent gun crime) went UP. Way up. To a level that, at its peak, was almost twice the level it had been for quite a few years before the ban. And it STAYED up, for a period of close to 8 years.

After that, it did decline. BUT... the decline cannot be attributed to the gun laws, because crime has been going down in all other major western countries at the same rate. Including in the United States. But in the United States, for that same period (and even today), per-capita gun ownership has been going UP, not down.

With such a similar reduction in crime, in similar nations, which did NOT decrease or restrict gun ownership, it is impossible to say (and irresponsible to even suggest) that it was the gun laws that are responsible for that reduction.

Re:I don't get it.

[Hognoxious]

It's already trivially easy to build a deadly weapon.

As deadly as a gun? I don't think so.

Do you mean something like a rock? While I admit it's possible to kill someone with one, it's relatively difficult if they're 1) moving 2) more than a few feet away and 3) able to throw it back at you if you miss.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

Here, let me Google that for you...

Seriously, it's pretty ridiculous to ask me to get this for you, when much of the data is so easily available and easy to find.

Those aren't the whole story, though. A lot of it is not so easy to put in a graph. Keep in mind that (A) gun control laws in the U.S., did in fact peak in the early 90s, and (B) per-capita gun ownership in the U.S. has been going steadily up since that same time.

It simply isn't possible for me to put all the data together here for you on Slashdot. I'm not going to take the time to write a book. But you might be able to find some. I would just ask that if you do read a book about it, be sure to check its claims and its statistics against the official numbers, because there is an awful lot of bullshit propaganda going around.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

I should add that figures from before the Bureau of Justice Statistics was formed, and for at least a few years after that, were kept by the Department of Justice, and published on its website.

Re:I don't get it.

[ultranova]

As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns.

You don't need to care about guns themselves to be excited about this. It's quite sufficient to be interested in 3D printing itself. After all, a gun combines high pressures, high temperatures, sudden shocks of both and corrosive substances (from the burnt propellant) with low tolerances so if you can print a working gun, chances are that you can print pretty much anything.

On the other hand, companies know this too, so it's only natural that there's scaremongering around the issue. "You wouldn't print a car..."

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

But again, as logical as that seems, there is no data that shows that it actually happens.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

And just in case that was ambiguous, I repeat: the crime rates I referred to include murder. And even, if you want to go there: mass shootings and school shootings. Despite the newspaper headlines, those are all DOWN from what they were 20 and more years ago.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes. Because when the assholes who will only have the their guns "taken from their cold dead hands" subsequently get caught with them, that is a firearm crime. Dumbass."

Dumbshit.

I was referring to violent crimes, including murders, not "getting caught with an illegal firearm". Many of the statistics are freely available from your own government. Try Google.

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

Such as in the UK, as you just stated?

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Can you post links to the stats you are talking about? Would actually be interested to see them."

Here are a couple of sources. You might have to look around a bit. But really, this stuff is not too hard to find.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

The DOJ kept these stats before the formation of the BJS. For earlier years, you might have to look there.

House of Commons, Firearm Crime Statistics

The latter is a .pdf. IMPORTANT NOTE: when reading the UK stats, be sure to separate out the parts that refer to air guns. Those just simply aren't considered "firearms" by the rest of the civilized world, and aren't included in anybody else's statistics.

There are a lot of gotchas when comparing stats from two different countries. For example: in the UK, a homicide is not listed in the stats as a "murder" unless someone has been tried and convicted of the murder. In the U.S., on the other hand, it is called a "murder" regardless of whether anybody is caught and convicted of the crime.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"A better one to cite is the far greater amount of knife crime in the UK."

Another good point: In the U.S., approximately 90% of people who were shot in recent decades ended up surviving the experience. (Wounded, and possibly injured for life, but survived.) While in contrast, approximately 90% of victims who were attacked with knives bled to death before help arrived.

I have no reason to think those figures would be substantially different elsewhere.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

That was my entire point. The data from the UK (see the link in another comment of mine) do not support the argument that gun control reduces crime. Sure, crime is down there. But it is down everywhere else in the Western world, too. Including in places like the U.S., which during that same time has seen fewer gun restrictions, and higher per-capita ownership.

Re:I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

Erm, gun culture isn't the same as gun control. One follows the other in the loooong term, and expectations are about gun culture.

To see the positive and negative effects of gun control, look at a country at least a decade later (and consider that boundedness - even it follows a global trend - *is* significant), but more insightfully a century later.

Re:I don't get it.

[stoatwblr]

The 3D printed rifle is made in CANADA - a country which doesn't have a gun obsession.

For many people it's about the engineering challenges(*), not about 2nd amendment rights - a lof of "gun nuts" are fundamentally unstable people merely using the USA 2nd amendment as convenient cover. You can generally tell which is which by looking at what they choose to use as targets

* Such as containing 20-100,000psi monetary pressure in the breech without blowing up in the operator's face.

Re:I don't get it.

[goingToSay]

Seriously, it's pretty ridiculous to ask me to get this for you, when much of the data is so easily available [bjs.gov] and easy to find

Same applies to you about adding citation if it is that easy. Make your own post credible.

Re:I don't get it.

[tsotha]

That may be true, but the gun you make with metal is going to be a lot more accurate and reliable.

Re:Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this? Someone having too much fun with something they found growing in their back yard? Only one thing to do, call it "reefer madness" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to enjoy themselves with it!

Never fear, the same Interstate Clause that says growing pot for your own use is interstate trade will be used to ensure that guns printed for your own use are very well regulated.

Again?

[egr]

Is there gonna be a story each time a 3D-printed gun fires?

Re:Again?

[oodaloop]

No, there's going to be a story every time a 3D printer prints something.

Re:Again?

[couchslug]

Yes, because that will groom the public to want DRM implemented on these Printers of Evil.

Think of the children, the potential for terrorism, and the potential for terrorist children.

(Don't think of democratization of the means of production. That's subversive!)

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you gonna bitch every time an article is on /. you don't like? You guys drive me crazy with that shit. You scream about too many slashvertisements, you bitch about too many bitcoin articles. Now you're bitching about too many 3D printer articles. Well genius, why don't you tell us exactly what kind of articles on /. would make you shut the fuck up? The correct answer is ZERO btw.

Re:Again?

[Opportunist]

Does that mean I have permission now to spam the submissions with links to my blog? :)

Re:Again?

[Opportunist]

I think we have to fight those terrorist children!

Or ... protect... protect the fight... fight the protection ...

Can you get back to me?

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

My 3D printer printed a very thin (but still 3D) layer of ink into a paper forming words and sentences...can i haz news?

Re:Again?

[egr]

I've never sad there were too many 3D printer articles. I said I was tired of 3D printed guns articles. So what if they fire? there already have been guns that fire. It is neither news nor achievement. Those guns are simple technology. Anything special about them are that they make of plastic that may explode in your hands.

On the side note I have never used the word "slashvertisement". Nor do I get too irritated over the persons trying to spread the word about their product on Slashdot if it is compelling to the crowd.

And finally "ZERO" does not fit the criteria to be an answer to either my or your questions.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what these people are trying to achieve, you're clearly never going to be able to build a reliable firearm entirely out of ABS plastic. The people at Glock figured this out quite a while ago.

Re:Why?

[couchslug]

They are trying to nullify totalitarian weapons control measures by democratization of production.

These are baby steps, not the House of Krupp in a fucking box.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glock? Learn something about material engineering... Heckler and Koch was doing this kind of work well before those Johnny Come Latelys over at Glock.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think 3d printers are limited to using ABS plastic???

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think 3d printers are limited to using ABS plastic???

3D Printed chocolate firearms would bring new meaning to death by chocolate.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can already make much better weapons than this with even more primitive manufacturing capabilities. If they're trying to "nullify totalitarian weapons control measures by democratization of production" (without the prose: make it cheap & easy to get a gun) then they're doing a shitty job of it. They made a poor-quality, unreliable gun firing a weak round, using an expensive and unusual manufacturing method that the vast majority of people do not have access to. You could make a better weapon with hand tools and plumbing parts, both of which are far more likely to be in the hands of whatever militant force hypothetically needs arming. If you're well-equipped enough to have electricity, internet access and a 3-D printer, you could probably manage to get a Lathe and a Welding torch and make a much better weapon (like a Sten or Grease Gun).

This is not at all a practical project, this is just a misuse of 3-D printing technology. Ignoring the politics of the issue, it is simply a bad idea from an engineering standpoint to use a 3-D printer for this kind of project. Almost any other manufacturing method would be suited to making a firearm than 3-D printing, especially with ABS. The technology has a very long way to go before it becomes useful for producing parts that will be under any sort of load, and conventional production methods will almost certainly remain cheaper for the foreseeable future.

We'll Call Him Lefty

[Anonymous Coward]

Cannot imagine taking the risk to fire one of these by hand.

"I was completely confident to hand fire"...

[AmazingRuss]

said the newly nose-less man.

Re: "I was completely confident to hand fire"...

[Virtucon]

He was taking a risk that all firearms manufacturers take. First bench firing, building confidence that the design works and then observing how the firearm held up after a few rounds, eventually he felt comfortable shooting it himself. It's been that way in armaments since time began. I can imagine the inventor of the slingshot getting hit in the head or hitting bystanders by accident but eventually it was a workable weapon.

Re: Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you watch the video you will see that the reload time and method for this weapon is both lengthy and somewhat conspicuous. Not to mention having to hide behind something to fire it with a piece of string...

It's definitely got to go!

Chicken Little

[Anonymous Coward]

All of that sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. Ermahgerd! A flash mob with GUNS!

Have 3D Printer Will Travel

[Mister Liberty]

Your Truly,
- Johnny Bitcoin

Why do gun nuts ruin technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish gun nuts would stop taking technology and perverting it for their meaningless displays of power and aggression.

I've never understood why gun nuts are so fearful and have to constantly prove to the world that they have the capability to kill. Let's use 3D printing for good purposes that benefit people, instead of enabling the fearful and violent.

Personally I can't imagine living like that, being afraid of everything all the time and finding more solace in a gun than the friendship or love of another human being.

Re:Why do gun nuts ruin technology?

[Virtucon]

When you use "perverting" and "friendship or love of another another human being" and "nuts" in the same post it just brings this other application of 3D Printing to mind.

Now you can print your own toys at home! No need for plain brown wrapper packaging!

Something useful

[slick7]

I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.

Re:Something useful

[funkboy]

I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.

There are plenty of them out there. Trouble is, they don't get most peoples' votes...

Silly question

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Use a 3D printer to print an inkjet cartridge
2. Fill generic ink
3. ...
4. Profit!

I honestly think this might be more economically viable than buying generic ink cartridges new from the manufacturer.

Changes

[jklovanc]

Matthew said he improved upon his first design of the Grizzly by making the barrel 50 percent larger, increasing the size of the receiver (the main portion that holds the firing mechanism),

Good things to do.

and adding groves to the inside of the barrel.

Maybe not so good. Depending on the depth of the grooves they may allow gases past the bullet and decrease the muzzle velocity. If they are helical groves they may increase accuracy.

By the way, without helical grooves the weapon is a musket and not a rifle.

I wonder what the muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapon is.

Re:Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

The grooves have to bite into the bullet a little and impart spin to help at all. Since plastic is so much softer than copper/lead it'll likely just be stripped out after a couple shots.

You could probably crudely rifle a piece of steel pipe with a hammer and a twisted allen wrench and have it work infinitely better.

Re:Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

He's adding groves? Should call it the "Druidic Deathbringer" then.

Can-Do does it better... again!

[ivi]

I'm not surprised...

Any country that can make a solid-fuel nuclear [CanDo] reactor work -without- needing costly -reprocessed- fuel-rods (and, who's already got some of its nuclear experts focussing on Energy from Thorium, as I write)...

should -surely- be capable of producing folks who can 1-up the competition in making a 3D-printed rifle fire.

PS As we watched the post-firing shell-removal step,
we couldn't help thinking of the pre-firing step required
to make a "flint-lock" rifle fire. :-)

What about 3D printed bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the barrel can now withstand multiple bullets being fired, does that also mean that the material used to make the barrel is strong enough to become a bullet that would cause serious injury to a human? At that point, does the only requirement for metal become the firing pin and the jacket for the bullet (the part that holds the gunpownder explosion and which the firing pin strikes.)

Re:What about 3D printed bullets?

[myowntrueself]

If the barrel can now withstand multiple bullets being fired, does that also mean that the material used to make the barrel is strong enough to become a bullet that would cause serious injury to a human? At that point, does the only requirement for metal become the firing pin and the jacket for the bullet (the part that holds the gunpownder explosion and which the firing pin strikes.)

Theres always caseless rounds, as used in the HK G11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

no need for metal cartridge case!

Re:What about 3D printed bullets?

[jafiwam]

If the barrel can now withstand multiple bullets being fired, does that also mean that the material used to make the barrel is strong enough to become a bullet that would cause serious injury to a human? At that point, does the only requirement for metal become the firing pin and the jacket for the bullet (the part that holds the gunpownder explosion and which the firing pin strikes.)

Theres always caseless rounds, as used in the HK G11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

no need for metal cartridge case!

Cases take heat out of the system. The case is warm as it leaves the ejection port, and as it turns out that's a critical function.

Caseless rounds have heat build up problems even with modern metal materials making up the firearm.

There are considerable materials challenges before caseless becomes practical on a regular firearm, let alone something printed using plastic and heat to melt it.

I can see some low power rounds with large cases (say something the size of a .45/70 but necked down to a .22 caliber for the projectile and barrel, then with a very thick case wall. Then you are only worried about the first few inches of barrel... bringing it to a manageable engineering problem.

Re:What about 3D printed bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

firing pin? electronic fire system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_V/L

no moving parts other then the loader and bolt door mechanism (which could be done with a single solenoid or muscle fiber and spring)

Re:Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[Opportunist]

Please take your common sense elsewhere, this thread here is for fear mongering.

A nice first start

[Virtucon]

Well, like 3D printing it seems the designs are evolving. This is a fairly novel approach in his design. I do like how the cartridge brass had to be tapped out of the end after each shot. The twist lock of the barrel into the receiver also helps hold any damage caused by cracking at the end of the barrel. It also became easier for the brass to fall out after each round indicating that the bore was increasing or becoming imprinted with the brass signature. While some people may disagree on gun control grounds I think the progress that is being made with 3D printing and materials is fascinating. I think we can also assume that a small form factor printed gun isn't practical yet, that is until there is some polymer technology that will render a much more durable plastic. The rifle is pretty useless unless it's used as a last resort and it's probably slower than a musket to load and fire but still, you have to admire the inventive spirit.

learn how to prototype firearms next time

[funkboy]

If this dude knew what he was doing WRT firearm prototyping, he would have "worked up a load" instead of starting out his "testing" with high-velocity varmint ammo.

Just like a handloader, prototyping any firearm (not just 3D printed ones) requires starting with light loads & working up until you start to see signs of excess pressure (deformed cases, sticky bolt, etc), then backing off.

Granted this thing is a rimfire so hand-reloading is not really a practical proposition, but part of the awesomeness of 22LR is that there are a zillion different kinds of ammo out there.

He should have started out with CB caps, then regular 22 shorts, then subsonic 22LR match ammo, then standard velocity, then HV varmint ammo (which is what he started with...), then blow the thing to bits with a max-pressure round like the CCI Velocitor.

Also sense the barrel is made of polymer, hard copper-jacketed bullets are probably a no-no. It would be a good idea to moly lube the thing & keep a chronograph on hand so you know when the effectiveness of the lube is starting to wear off & re-lube it. The better match bullets come pre-lubed so this is another good reason to test with them.

For all we know the thing may work just fine all day long with subsonic match ammo & proper lubrication.

Big kudos for making a 3D printed rifle that actually works, but use good methodology & it might continue to work instead of eventually blowing up every time you take it out...

I still think that in the rifle's present condition he should still blow it to bits with a Velocitor for good measure :-).

Be sure to get a group on paper with the next try...

Go ahead, keep thinking guns = freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, keep thinking guns = freedom.

First think Hitler did was loosen gun laws.

They have lots of guns in Afghanistan, and they safe and free right?

Then there's Somalia, lots of guns and no oppressive government there either, must be a fucking paradise.

Yep, guns are gonna keep ya safe and free.

Not thinking big enough

[SuperKendall]

String must be banned also!

Then later on Twine when you "hackers" figure out it can also apply force from a distance.

Re:Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[SuperKendall]

I'm from Colorado, where we will pay exactly as much attention to interstate trade in gun printing as we do pot growing.

I know this is all about 3d printing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that this is all about 3d printing and the neato things that you can print on it (guns and whatnot), and this is causing some American legislators to get fits and shout "ban them, ban them all", but you can build all this crap out of ceramic or plastic by hand using machine tools, and they can shoot more than 14 shots before things go boo, and just like the 3d stuff, it doesn't show up on metal detectors or x-ray scanners. So much for the boogeyman.

Re:I know this is all about 3d printing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree... But and it is IMO a little but to make a gun requires a minor amount of skill.
To print a gun requires less, ideally in the Magical Future of 3D Printing Wonderland it will require no more skill than downloading a song.

Scary

[StewartD]

I'm sorry I guess I should look at this as a technological leap, but I'm getting worried about where this 3D printing is headed..

Re:Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called an assault rifle because of the blistering rate of fire, which is almost comparable with professionally made muzzle-loading muskets at this point.

Who Really Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

I ask - who really cares about this??? Don't people realize you can make mush more robust and successful weapons using traditional materials and tools?