3D-Printed Gun Bought and Displayed By London Art Museum

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D-Printed Gun Bought and Displayed By London Art Museum

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 16, 2013 @12:56AM from the print-and-shoot dept.

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The world's first 3D-printed gun known as the Liberator has been treated as a technological marvel and a terrorist threat. Now it's officially become a work of art. On Sunday, London's Victoria & Albert museum of art and design announced that it's buying two of the original Liberator printed guns from their creator, the libertarian hacker non-profit known as Defense Distributed, and will display them during its Design Festival. Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed's founder, calls the museum's acquisition of the gun a victory for his group: 'It will now be this curated, permanent cultural provocation.'"

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Art by damnal · 2013-09-16 01:00 · Score: 2

Art is always in the eye of the beholder.
1. Re:Art by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Boy, I sure hope I'm never in the eye of a beholder.
2. Re:Art by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-16 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm allergic to bee stings you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3. Re:Art by meerling · 2013-09-16 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It is a historical and precedent setting object, not to mention an interesting design. That definitely makes it of value to a Museum of Art & Design. Heck, just about any museum except those that are really specialized.
Art??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:04 · Score: 0

Tell me how a glorified zip gun is considered art?
1. Re:Art??? by gl4ss · 2013-09-16 01:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Tell me how a glorified zip gun is considered art?
  it's media art. not art of engineering. not art of revolution. but art of playing the media frenzy.
  you know what non-profit means in this context? that all the money goes for the guy..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Art??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  The V&A is a museum of art and design, so hopefully the gun is considered the latter, not the former.
3. Re:Art??? by Valdrax · 2013-09-16 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. A zip gun clearly takes skill, talent, and effort to create.
  That makes this mere pop art, unworthy of being honored with our greatest works.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
4. Re:Art??? by nurb432 · 2013-09-16 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  In the same way that a blob of paint is, a photo of a sunset, or a bottle filled with urine and a jesus doll.
  Art is relative to the beholder.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why? by O('_')O_Bush · 2013-09-16 01:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.

Good 3D printers are not cheaper or more accessible than used CNCs, and the turns produced are far more dangerous than those produced from small blocks of aluminum and steel.

Granted, producing the guns may be cheaper (AR parts kit, plus homemade receiver, plus upper would probably cost 700$), but the difference in quality and utility is quite vast.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
1. Re:Why? by Mr.Zuka · 2013-09-16 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.
  It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
  Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
  Think of it like the script kiddie of gun making.
2. Re:Why? by i.r.id10t · 2013-09-16 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  And now that the panic is over, you can get one brand new for your $700 price point....
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.
  People are idiots and have no knowledge of things outside their little spheres of interest and no desire to learn.
  Ergo, "HOLY SHIT YOU CAN PRINT GUNS OH MY GOD WHAT'S THAT FALLING IT IS THE SKY ZOMGZOMGZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111eleven"
4. Re:Why? by internerdj · 2013-09-16 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget a for-profit 24-7 news cycle has to maximize profit not truth. Some things are incredibly worse when their first motive is profit.
5. Re:Why? by gl4ss · 2013-09-16 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
  Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
  Think of it like the script kiddie of gun making.
  
  printing the gun on sub 8000$ 3d printer has you dealing with getting it to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage.. much more than it takes skill to buy a shotgun shell, a spring, a nail, a bit of wood and a pipe and to assemble them. and that gun would be re-usable.
  in fact, I don't think he's serious about home guns. if he was then he would be using pipes and home depot parts where it makes sense and printing some other parts. that way you could build a stern clone for sub 100$. now his gun is a media gimmick.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not aware of any CNCs that are within the price point of a home user.
7. Re:Why? by zigziggityzoo · 2013-09-16 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Try making an AK from raw materials. Now try printing a firearm from raw materials. Tell me which is easier.
  
  --
  Zing!
8. Re:Why? by ModernGeek · 2013-09-16 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  This is just the result of media-pandering as usual. People have been making guns ever since they existed, and the NSA has been spying on us ever since the proliferation of the telephone. It's just that big media loves grassroots-like stories to keep the Y-gen kids interested in everything.
  
  Stereolithography stimulates the minds of pseudo-intellectuals who dream of one day saving up $1,000 to buy a cheap one, and go on to imagine somehow changing the world with it. Things like this fuel the hype, and get more kids watching the news that comes down from the mainstream, and then onto social media sites like reddit.
  
  If it gets a few more kids interested in engineering every year, I suppose it's harmless and they could be pushing worse things down our throats.
  
  As for the rest of us, we can simply scroll down past these, and pay attention to the real things that matter in this topic like discoveries in new material technology.
  
  --
  Sig: I stole this sig.
9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.taigtools.com/cmill.html
  Taig makes a decent little product that can do all but one of the operations on an ar-15 receiver.
  If you want to vastly over complicate a homemade weapon, I'm sure you can find a design that can be milled.
10. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not aware of any CNCs that are within the price point of a home user.
  Congratulations, you just triggered a rant!
  Hack a Day put out an opinion piece saying that upcoming patent expiry wasn't going to put 3d printers in hobbyists' garages. They were wrong, sadly, stupidly, wrong. Here's why: They based their argument on the idea that nobody would spend $10,000 for a FDM machine for their home. But that's just stupid, stupid bullshit. People spend way more than that on their hobbies. I know quite a few people with a lot more than $10,000 into their hobbies. There's people out there with more than 10k into a fucking train set! Don't even get started on something like racing.
  By the same token, you're completely off-based on the price of CNC. You can buy a classic 2.5D mill, a real stout one, for about $1500 with a fair amount of tooling. It will probably come with a three phase motor, so you'll need to spend a little more on a phase converter; as a bonus that can also be a speed controller so you don't have to dick around with belts all the time. For another $1500 you can convert it to full CNC operation. So for way less than the price of a mediocre race car, you can have CNC in your garage.
  What a shock, an ignorant anonymous coward
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-16 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.
  Because "makers" are hip and cool and go to Burning Man. And a guy with CAD plans and a used CNC machine is called a "machinist" and that's not nearly as cool.
  My father was a machinist, a tool-and-die maker for a good part of his life after WWII. But "makers" believe they have invented something new, so making something from a 3D printer that doesn't work is much cooler than making something that works.
  Plus, there is the frisson that comes from doing stuff that involves guns, because guns give some people hard-ons. Put together fruity "makers" and guns in the same story and you get internet gold.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:Why? by Rude+Turnip · 2013-09-16 02:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's not about the shitty design process. It's about sending a message: democratized defense against all threats, external and internal.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
13. Re:Why? by poity · 2013-09-16 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably more about culture than about the object itself. I would guess because it was central to the huge media coverage, it has come represents the moment when the public consciousness expanded to the (preexisting) accessibility of homemade firearms. It marked a "holy shit I didn't realize that" moment for the general population.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not what the point was. The point revolves more aroudn securing other American's freedoms. Watch a few of this guys videos, and listen to his ideologies. Not to shabby. And you may turn down his ideas but one thing is for sure. Gun violence is a problem in the states. Taking the guns away might actually help for a little while, but it is not the problem. I just think its odd that no one wants to address the growing racial, cultural, monetary divide, plus the drug problems. People want the ability to take eachothers lives for all the wrong reasons. And there are right reasons.......
15. Re:Why? by CastrTroy · 2013-09-16 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  This gun is not an AK. Not even close. It's probably the equivalent of a zip gun. Those are quite easy to make, and don't require that you have an expensive printer as a starting point.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
16. Re:Why? by return+42 · 2013-09-16 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.
  Good point. I see two reasons for "the authorities" to be more worried about 3D guns. First is (I would guess) CNC is fairly mature and stable, while 3D printing is undergoing rapid development, becoming cheaper, more versatile, more accessible. Second is that a CNC machine is something of a niche application, not interesting to many people, whereas 3D printing can make a much wider variety of things and is therefore potentially of interest to more people. Thus, 3D printed firearms are potentially accessible to many more people, and, with future technology, easier to produce.
17. Re:Why? by AlecC · 2013-09-16 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  Can confirm this. My ex-boss makes a $500 tuning accessory for a $24,000 miniature but working steam locomotive. The guy who builds the locomotives is building them in batches of twenty, OK, the locomotive is the main cost of your miniature railway, but you are probably looking at $50,000 for a working setup, for something with no practical use at all. $10,000 for something that makes useful stuff? No problem. I could see the upper end of the steam enthusiasts getting a CNC machine, if it were easy enough to use (not trivial) just for fixing and enhancing their locomotives.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
18. Re:Why? by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-16 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  People are idiots and have no knowledge of things outside their little spheres of interest and no desire to learn. - AC, 2013
  Thanks for my new signature.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill. Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
  Really? When I was 16 (over 20 years ago) I put together a small zip gun just out of curiosity. Right now I have no idea how to make 3D printed gun, except in theory. Take your average Joe off the streets and put them into front of computer with a 3D printer and let's see if they can make a plastic zip gun with it.
20. Re:Why? by return+42 · 2013-09-16 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Another thought: I would guess that CNC tools tend to be big and heavy and take up a lot of space in the basement of one's house. A 3D printer can fit on a table in a small apartment, and you only need the one printer to print a firearm.
21. Re:Why? by brunes69 · 2013-09-16 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  One major reason - it's made out of low grade plastic. It's thus not going to be picked up my metal detectors.
22. Re:Why? by MozeeToby · 2013-09-16 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because the hope of a lot of people is to have a high quality 3D printer in every home some day. If they become standard appliances it's quite a bit different from a CnC machine.
23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Taking the guns away might actually help for a little while
  It has not helped any gun-free zone, because gun-free zones, be they cities, parks, or schools, are not magically gun-free.
24. Re:Why? by return+42 · 2013-09-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. Remember the ammo is metallic. Also, the nitrates in the powder can be detected by dogs and possibly machines.
  Also, while metal detectors don't detect plastic, T-waves and ultrasound might well.
25. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-16 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  I'm still not sure what makes 3D printed guns any different or more special than a gun produced with CAD plans and a used CNC machine.
  It's really a matter of skill. Getting metal to spec, dealing with heating and shrinkage, using a lathe all take skill.
  Loading some plastic and pressing print doesn't.
  After spending an hour or so this past weekend watching people's 3D printer videos online, I think you're underestimating the challenge of successful, usable prints.
  Sure, it's much easier than learning to mill barrels on a machine lathe, but not quite as trivial as you make it out to be.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Because of potential. 3D printers are still improving drastically and the prices keep coming down. The eventual end goal would be a decently precise desktop machine being available in your local office supplies/computer store in the near future. CNC machines haven't done this. And they've had decades. Is it possible to do this? I don't know. But if it was easy enough to do I'm sure someone would have done it years ago. Plastic is just ultimately and easier material to work worth and has better chances for a machine that will operate like your printer today and spit out whatever you downloaded off the internet.
27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry your social circle is so impoverished.
28. Re:Why? by meerling · 2013-09-16 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Currently it's much easier and cheaper to build a zipgun/saturdaynight special/junkgun with parts from the hardware store and regular shop tools than it is to make 3D printed gun. And that's not even mentioning that the non-printed one will probably be more accurate and durable. What the fuss is really about is idiots panicking and trying to make a scene.
  If someone wants to bring up the supposed skill gap, it's pretty much an illusion. Anyone that has the most basic tool use skills could make a zip gun of one form or another. Heck, my mom could make one if she wanted to. As to knowledge of guns, it's not exactly an industrial secret, and besides, at it's most basic, it's a tube with a round inserted in one end with the bullet facing the other, and held steady while a firing pin forcefully smacks the middle of the round, and some kind of grip so it's easy to hold and not get burned. For that matter, the basic principles of guns along with basic descriptive drawings or photos of it's workings are easily attainable on the internet or any dead tree format library. Heck, even the Japanese could get that info, and I'm sure you've heard how anti-gun their government is.
  
  I merely see the 3d printed guns as a representative of the fantastic and wide ranging possibilities for 3d printing in the future. Someday they may be a near virtual Aladdins Lamp. (Combine an ability to use many different materials simultaneously with a recycling/material bank restocking ability, and the sky's the limit.)
29. Re:Why? by HornWumpus · 2013-09-16 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  FYI you don't need a CNC machine to make a zip gun. You need a vice, a drill press and a chamber reamer for you round.
  You don't need a CNC machine to make an AK clone ether. But you will likely buy the barrel.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
30. Re:Why? by RoboRay · 2013-09-16 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about a shovel?
31. Re:Why? by bdwebb · 2013-09-16 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  http://buildyourcnc.com/
32. Re:Why? by bdwebb · 2013-09-16 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  Actually all the patterns for AK receivers are pretty easy to find. After that you need some rudimentary parts (which you can jury-rig easily) and a piece of wood and you can have a working frankenstein AK. One of the primary reasons AKs are so prolific is that they are EXTREMELY durable and EXTREMELY easy to work on.
  
  A guy I used to know built one about 10 years ago from ~$100 in parts from hardware stores and a steel supply shop...it was ugly as sin and wasn't very accurate but it fired and much more accurately than the printed gun would due to the fact that this was a rifle. He never had the balls to fire it by hand (always behind a barrier with a string tied to the trigger, heh) but I don't blame him one bit.
  
  Ultimately, it just takes a bit of thought and reverse engineering skill along with the Google on the internet machine and you can easily make a gun. Not to mention the fact that it is easy as shit to just go buy an unregistered, illegal firearm.
33. Re:Why? by nurb432 · 2013-09-16 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  3D printers will come down in price. Cheap CNC has pretty much stabilized.
  3D printers takes zero skill. CNC takes some.
  While not quite there yet for the home printer, commodity 3D materials will improve. Also have you never heard of plastic lowers before? Several companies sell them, so the concept of plastic does not make them unsafe by default. ( try telling Gaston Glock that plastic is unsafe, i'm sure he would disagree.. )
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
34. Re:Why? by rastoboy29 · 2013-09-16 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  erm, how are they dangerous? serious question here.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
35. Re:Why? by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2013-09-16 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because the hope of a lot of people is to have a high quality 3D printer in every home some day.
  But it is not going to happen. Some people want one, most people don't. Of the people who do want a 3D printer, most I expect are like me, and think it would be cool. BUT I am sure that if I were to buy a 3D printer tomorrow, I would print about 5 things, then lose interest, and then it would sit in the corner for the next 5 years. I would bet good money most people would have the same usage pattern.
  
  I might risk it if I could get a 3D printer for $250 or so, but they are still much to expensive for me to risk buying one.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
36. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  I could see the upper end of the steam enthusiasts getting a CNC machine, if it were easy enough to use (not trivial) just for fixing and enhancing their locomotives.
  Heck, making setups on a mill actually is trivial compared to operating a steam engine, or installing the head on an overhead cam engine, or lots of other tasks regularly engaged in by people who spend a lot of money on their hobbies.
  As someone who does not have a lot of money to spend on their hobbies, I recently bought a used drill press, and now I am having a devil of a time finding t-nuts. I mean, I can find them, but I can't find them with reasonable shipping...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why not print their own? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:08 · Score: 0

It's not like they're making a photocopy of the Mona Lisa here.
So he admits it. by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-16 01:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

'It will now be this curated, permanent cultural provocation.'"
So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll. I liked it better when they stuck to the Internet and didn't fuck things up for us IRL. Things are a lot harder to ignore or fix there.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:So he admits it. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it's ever been unclear as to exactly what the intent was. The thing about trolling is that it requires people to let themselves be trolled--and in that he succeeded wonderfully. In a sense it again put the brittle knee-jerkery of the political scene back into the limelight.
  Make no mistake. The people throwing a hissy fit over this could just as well shrug and move on. As they should after they've examined the evidence and thought a bit about the consequences. They didn't even shrug, meaning that they wanted to throw a fit, and this was suitable material to get their knickers in a twist over.
  In that sense this is much-needed pokery at the apparatus that likes to take freedoms away and had a field day with other people's freedoms after 9/11. And a lot more benign than what happened there, which, in a sense, was exactly ment as a huge IRL troll on a hated enemy. That enemy didn't manage to make themselves any less hated (or any more trustworthy, for that matter) in the intervening dozen years.
  What was the price of freedom again? Oh yes, eternal vigilance. I think someone dozed off there, just for a little while.
  See this as a wake-up call.
2. Re:So he admits it. by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll.
  Throughout history, artists have been described as "provocative". Many of these provocative works are now considered classics. One purpose of art is indeed to be provocative. Are you trolling, or just massively ignorant? I don't see a third option here
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:So he admits it. by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-16 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  The third option is that I don't want legally-required DRM on 3D printers.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
4. Re:So he admits it. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  That will most definitely happen, not from fear of weapons, but fear of people making replacement parts, plastic toys and other things that would cut into profit.
5. Re:So he admits it. by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  The third option is that I don't want legally-required DRM on 3D printers.
  Look, either you support people using 3D printers in totally legal ways or you don't. If you're not prepared to fight for other people's right to make what they want, then be prepared to be prohibited from making what you want eventually. Try the lessons of history, they're important.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:So he admits it. by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-16 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  I'd be fine if he was just 3D printing handguns. I might even want to help him out as a fun experiment. But that's not what he's doing, he's loudly provoking governments into taking action (which he might VERY mistakenly think would be deregulating firearms), stirring up a fight that doesn't need to be fought right now. Do I need to settle on either condoning this provocation or siding with authoritarians? And are you sure he's not working on the side of authoritarianism? He's not fighting for any rights we don't have, what he's doing would work perfectly as a protest for regulation of 3D printers, the only thing missing is a statement of such intent from him.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:So he admits it. by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-16 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  So he admits that he's a shit-disturbing troll.
  Throughout history, artists have been described as "provocative". Many of these provocative works are now considered classics. One purpose of art is indeed to be provocative. Are you trolling, or just massively ignorant? I don't see a third option here
  Kinda makes a guy wonder what people would have said about Da Vinci if they'd had internet in ancient Venice.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
8. Re:So he admits it. by Zimluura · 2013-09-16 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think that DRM on 3D Printers is, in any way, feasible.
  The angle I think may be tried in the future: A massive mesh fingerprint database that has to be checked before a design can be printed. easy solutions: hack the driver to always return "no_match_in_database_ok_to_print" or gut 3D printer's brain and wrire an arduino to use its high precision linear actuators and chassis.
  I really can't see that approach working ever. As long as there are computers with programming languages and DC motors you'll have 3d printing. I guess they could try to regulate all computer programming and electronics parts everywhere. so no one will ever be able to build a 3d printer.
9. Re:So he admits it. by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-16 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that it can't be any worse than the current state of DRM ubiquity on TVs and gaming consoles? Well that's true but I don't think it's good...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
10. Re:So he admits it. by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're being ridiculous on multiple levels. You can already mill as much of a firearm from stock using a CNC mill that costs a lot less than one of these fancy 3D printers as you can with these techniques, and it will be a lot more dangerous besides. It would be approximately as easy to prevent one of those from making firearms as it would be to do it with one of these machines. Ultimately, if you have the hardware, you can make your own control equipment. Well, not me, and maybe or maybe not you, but someone. Ultimately, you're not going to stop people from 3D printing guns by manipulating the 3D printer even if you try. Ultimately, the rapid manufacturing industry itself will prevent this from happening through lobbying, because it would cost them a lot of money to try to do, and they would certainly fail anyway.
  The truth is that the same has been said of artists throughout history, and probably engineers too. But let's just say that he's been paid to be the poster boy for why 3D printing needs controls. What the hell is the damn difference? Either we have the right to use our own hardware or we don't. This is a fight that needs to be fought in general and we're arguing over specifics.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:So he admits it. by HornWumpus · 2013-09-16 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Taking you literally we're in trouble. DC motors are obsolete. Brushless motors and motor controllers.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
12. Re:So he admits it. by Valdrax · 2013-09-16 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Throughout history, artists have been described as "provocative". Many of these provocative works are now considered classics. One purpose of art is indeed to be provocative. Are you trolling, or just massively ignorant? I don't see a third option here
  One could be a member of the large number of people outside of the "high art" community that believes that mere provocation is insufficient to be art.
  The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living? Not art.
  Marcel Duchamp's "readymades?" Not art.
  Work No. 227: the lights going on and off? Not art.
  To us, art requires some kind of talent, skill, or effort that is beyond what the common man can achieve. Sneer as you like at those of us who don't see the above as art for being "ignorant," but we just look at people like you as the emperor with no clothes -- suckers who have built an entire sense of "culture" around all nodding and pretending to believe a con perpetrated upon you until you actually do.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
13. Re:So he admits it. by Zimluura · 2013-09-16 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'll attempt to clarify with a little list:
  1) Any DRM will be very easy to defeat, the brains on a 3D printer have opensource implementations.
  2) It will be a worthwhile endeavor to defeat any finger printing DRM, even if you don't plan to make copies of patented or copyrighted works because of massive performance gain.
  3) Craftsmen tend to want open ended tools. DRM on a 3D printer would be (somewhat) analogous to photoshop telling you what you can and can't draw, or a pianno that won't play certain note progressions.
14. Re:So he admits it. by Zimluura · 2013-09-16 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  those can't be powered by direct current?
15. Re:So he admits it. by HornWumpus · 2013-09-16 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously the (frequency drive/inverter/motor controller) will have a DC bus. Still isn't a DC motor.
  DC motor has a specific meaning.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:So he admits it. by Zimluura · 2013-09-17 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  are you sure those aren't also called brushless dc motors?
  this thingy seems to indicate brushed and brushless could both be refered to by the term.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_motor
  in any case, the intention of my message was: as long as we can buy/make motors controllable from a dc power source we should be able to create actuators to run 3d printers, and program them from our not-locked down computers.
So take that, by John.Banister · 2013-09-16 01:12 · Score: 3, Funny

3D printed ploughshares!
Wrong Aproach by wisnoskij · 2013-09-16 01:15 · Score: 0

These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them, that is just useless, and stupid, and counter to any reason you would like them.
"3D printed guns, they make good wall hangers."
If you are interested in these 3D printed guns, then have a live demonstration or something. Show one being make, being fired, etc...

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:Wrong Aproach by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-16 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them
  Of course you can. By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Wrong Aproach by cgt · 2013-09-16 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably illegal in the UK.
3. Re:Wrong Aproach by VortexCortex · 2013-09-16 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.
  Or, at least get some TSA goons at the exhibit to feel up grandma and a few toddlers so we know what we're standing for...
4. Re:Wrong Aproach by raburton · 2013-09-16 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably illegal in the UK.
  I assume to posses the original legally they'll have to have it deactivated too. Although that depends on if it's actually classed as a firearm in the first place, while it obviously should be I don't know if the law actually sees a 3d printed bit of plastic as a firearm just because it could fire a bullet (after all lots of things could do).
5. Re:Wrong Aproach by wisnoskij · 2013-09-16 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  No that is completely different, that is a historic piece.
  The whole point of the 3D printed gun is that you can make one in your office.
  This gun is not historic or special, the technique is.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
6. Re:Wrong Aproach by wisnoskij · 2013-09-16 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  So they are actually just displaying a hunk of plastic in the general shape of a gun? Wow, I would totally take time to go see that.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
7. Re:Wrong Aproach by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-16 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  No that is completely different, that is a historic piece.
  So is this. It's not in the same league as the Wright Flyer - I'd far rather see that - but I'd still find it interesting to see this particular gun.
  
  This gun is not historic or special, the technique is.
  And this is the first working gun to be made with this technique.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
8. Re:Wrong Aproach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  This is clearly a prohibited weapon under Section 5 of the Firearms Act. The Museum will have to get the permission of the Secretary of State to own these, and will have to prevent them from being handled by anyone who doesn't hold a similar authorisation.
9. Re:Wrong Aproach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Do european musuems not have guns on display? I really don't get why anyone would say you can't just display them...
  They're now a part of history and culture, whether people want them to be or not. They aren't common -- but it may be historically relevant as 'the first'.
  Old firearms and guns are pretty common in US museums.. (often de-milled or filled in). It's not like you're going to shatter the case and walk out the front door with an M60... or an old .700 miniball...
  I've been to multiple civil war museums that have hundreds (?) of different styles of long rifles, whole sections on kentucky/texas differences...
  Hell, I am near the 'national' nuclear museum. In addition to early ejection seats, aircraft you can walk in, they have: ICBMs, bombs, russian rockets... they're all de-milled, but you can see boosters, tanks, and even fissionables-missing warheads... they have one of the earliest artillery pieces that fired a nuke too... can't recall the name, but I have pictures at home...
  One of the aircraft has ... what I think is the gauss gatling cannon on the front.... something with a rate of fire so massive it will actually reduce the airspeed sufficiently to stall the aircraft...
10. Re: Wrong Aproach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, come off it. This is the V&A. They will have permission, and in the unlikely event that they don't, they'll get it. Consider what the V and A stand for, and then imagine a Tory minister trying to prevent them having a particular exhibit.
11. Re:Wrong Aproach by TangoMargarine · 2013-09-16 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  You hide weapons on a toddler while going through airport security for the same reason that criminals in Kosovo or wherever hid their shit in hospitals when the bombs started falling. As soon as the "bad guys" realize that the "good guys" have a line they won't cross, the smart ones will stand just over the line and heckle.
  Sigh.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
12. Re:Wrong Aproach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  You can do whatever the fuck you want with them.
  For example, you could cram one up your arse. Give it a try if you don't believe me.
Not art by Nidi62 · 2013-09-16 01:17 · Score: 1, Troll

While I do feel firearms can be works of art, this plastic piece of crap is not art. A Kentucky rifle is art(the smooth lines, the metal plates); an antique engraved firearm is art(some of those old engravings are amazing); hell, even an AK-47 is in my opinion art, in a mechanical/engineering sense(it's simplicity of use, the beatings they can take and still operate). But a plastic gun that falls apart after a few shots? They might as well include a Nambu type 94 in their exhibit. They can call it "How not to design firearms".

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:Not art by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-16 01:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not there to look pretty. It's there because it was the first of its kind. It's in the museum of art and design.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Not art by Nidi62 · 2013-09-16 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's in the museum of art and design.
  And I'm saying it is not worthy of being there. Do they have Gyrojet there? It was the first of it's kind, and it was pretty crappy too. I'd rather them show display the AK-47 a guy made out of a shovel and a barrel blank. THAT takes some real ingenuity and design. This guy was just an attention whore.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:Not art by oodaloop · 2013-09-16 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, I'm so glad you're here to arbitrate what is and isn't art! All this time, I had to think of art as being subjective and open to interpretation from the observer, but this is so much easier!
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
4. Re:Not art by BasilBrush · 2013-09-16 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Manufactured items aren't art. They are the products of design, and may be copies of an artwork. But they are not art.
  Given that this is coming out of a printer, that can continue manufacturing the same item, with differences only being random mechanical errors, I'm going to say that it's not art.
  Given that this is a museum of art and design, this does qualify. But not on the basis of it being art.
5. Re:Not art by alexander_686 · 2013-09-16 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
  Andy Warhol and his factory
  Terry Redlin
  Ferraris
6. Re:Not art by xaxa · 2013-09-16 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  The Imperial War Museum (also in London) has three Gyrojets in its collection: http://www.iwm.org.uk/search/global?query=gyrojet&x=0&y=0 .
  But they don't seem to be interesting for their artistic design, which is what the V&A collects and exhibits.
7. Re:Not art by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well, i think it depends in how do you classificate art. If you think art is just a representation of the beautiful, or something it's useful and ellegant with dellicate lines of the craftsmanship, then this gun is not art. Buuuuuuuut, this is a simplistic form in how to perceive art (XIX century) and its outdated. There's a guy named Walter Benjamin of the first half of XX century, that have an essay named "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" that is kinda easy to read to you begin to understand what is art in our age.
  There's a significant difference in our concepts of art, but to shorten this discussion please understand that those guns are a form of art not only for their simple designs, but for their significance per se. It's not the possibility of this object to be made in front of the person with the 3d printer, but the discussion and understanding that this new possibility of production opens. Art is not only the visual.
8. Re:Not art by BasilBrush · 2013-09-16 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
  Andy Warhol and his factory
  Terry Redlin
  Ferraris
  The Mona Lisa is a work of art. The post cards they sell in the Louvre gift shop are reproductions of works of art, but not works of art in themselves. The whole limited edition print thing does not make a reproduction any more of a work of art.
  Warhol's Factory had an output of both artworks and reproductions. Sounds like Terry Redlin too, but I don't know him (maybe I would if I was American.)
  If by Ferraris, you mean the manufactured cars, they are not art works. If you mean an artist by the name Ferrari, then maybe.
  All IMO.
9. Re:Not art by alexander_686 · 2013-09-16 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Read up on Terry Redlin. Yes, he is a American known for his landscapes. I think he was banal and kitsch but each to their own. He lands right between original art work and postcards.
  He figured out that reproductions could look very good if they were printed on canvas and if some oil paint was daubed over to get it that “oil painted” feel. So he would paint a original and then start cranking out copies. IIRC he “painted” all of his copies – at least a few brush strokes. The rest would be completed by his assistances. The cost of the original reproductions would depend on how much work he had done verse his assistants.
  He has been dead for some years and they are still cranking out originals – canvas that he had started but the assistants have not finished. He made a mint.
  So more work was put in Redlin’s pictures then in some of Andy Warhol’s factor work. On the other hand, since each Ferrari is hand built, more work is put into them either Redlin or Warhol’s work.
  For me it is a grey area that requires subjective judgment.
  And I am going to have to disagree with you on the printing. Lithography and photography is a art form.
newer by nten · 2013-09-16 01:19 · Score: 2

If you are referencing doom, d&d actually came first (1975).

--
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
1. Re:newer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  FAIL. 1974
Entirely Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Bought a 3d printed gun? The entire point was for it to be printable! If anything, don't display the gun, display a 3D printer in a case continually printing guns, with the finished guns falling into a hopper to be ground down to pellets to be extruded into filament to be fed back into the printer. Now that's art!
1. Re:Entirely Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like an anti-gun wet dream.
2. Re:Entirely Missing the Point by EnsilZah · 2013-09-16 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think that would be missing the point as well.
  If anything they should just display a link to a torrent for it.
It's for scumbags only. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:26 · Score: 1

....the difference in quality and utility is quite vast.
When you're a scumbag out to hurt someone, you just need to stick the gun to their face and pull the trigger.
These aren't snipers or even some infantry guy who needs accuracy and reliability.
Stick the gun to their head and *BOOM* be done with it.
This gun has no purpose other than to prove a point and the only use for it is to scare people - "Oh my God! Someone can print a PLASTIC gun in their basement and bring through TSA and take over an airplane!"
1. Re:It's for scumbags only. by bdwebb · 2013-09-16 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The design has been out for quite some time and it can OBVIOUSLY be made without the metal plate included to allow it to bypass TSA and get on an airplane. The point is that it STILL hasn't been done by ANYONE in any country on the face of the entire planet and therefore being scared of this as even a possibility is tantamount to being retarded. In my opinion, that isn't very scary at all. There have been no assassinations, no plane shootings, no terror activities...nothing. You are scared of something emotionally without using any sort of logic at all...you might as well be an ape. Actually they might be more logical in some circumstances.
  
  The entire point to this project is to show that regulation of firearms in the way that the federal government would like to do is simply not possible and is completely unreasonable, not to mention that it is NOT FEASIBLE and does not target criminal gun owners (or 'scumbags' as you put it). Simply put, criminals who want to shoot someone can very easily find weapons that are not registered and not tied to them in any way (it is actually much easier to do this than to obtain a gun through legal channels most times). Also, anyone can make a rudimentary but fully functional gun out of hardware store parts because the concept of 'explosion creates force, force has one possible escape vector, object sits between explosion and path to escape and therefore is accelerated by the force of the explosion' is about as rudimentary as it gets.
Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by dryriver · 2013-09-16 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Am I the only one who thinks that these idiots are creating 3D printed guns solely to provoke TPTB into regulating 3D printers? ---- I.e. future 3D printer models you purchase will send any 3D object you print to a remote server, where trained specialists check whether you are - possibly - printing "gun parts" without legal authorization. ------ I think that the crappy 3D guns these people are trying to create give all of 3D printing a bad name. And I'm pretty sure that the big corporations can't wait for 3D printers to be crippled with draconian regulations. Thus one can forget about a future where one doesn't buy a product the conventional way, but rather uses one's home 3D printer to print it out. I hope the 3D guns people stop before they ruin the 3D printed future for the rest of humanity. My 2 Cents...

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
1. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  The Constitution does not permit TPTB to regulate 3D printers. Manufacturing your own firearm is also perfectly legal and it is a criminal violation of basic civil rights for the government to try to stop it.
2. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by VortexCortex · 2013-09-16 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who thinks that these idiots are creating 3D printed guns solely to provoke TPTB into regulating 3D printers?
  
  Are there regulations on plumbing materials? Hop your ass down to the hardwares store. When all the shit there that can make better weapons faster and cheaper is provoking folks into regulating them, then perhaps I'll consider 3D printer output the same.
  I think you're really missing the damn point here bub. One key thing this shows is not that everything must be regulated or it'll be turned into weapons, but that the 2nd amendment should be "The Right to Bear Technology", because that's what arms are. Think about cryptography. Now think about munitions, Now back to Cryptography, now think about toaster ovens, get a rolling pin in your head for a good long minute, and now to automobiles... That last one is the most dangerous... Second only to poor diet.
  I can't believe they're building meals in factories and pumping them full of preservatives! This is giving Food a bad name! No one will be able to cook without government oversight now! My Zero Bitcoins...
3. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by Nidi62 · 2013-09-16 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're really missing the damn point here bub. One key thing this shows is not that everything must be regulated or it'll be turned into weapons, but that the 2nd amendment should be "The Right to Bear Technology", because that's what arms are. Think about cryptography. Now think about munitions, Now back to Cryptography
  Remember, certain types of software are actually considered munitions for the purpose of export. I wonder if that line of reasoning has ever been tested in court: "the government defines this software as a weapon, so the 2nd Amendment applies". That could turn into an interesting legal argument.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
4. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by krovisser · 2013-09-16 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh hey, look at that! DC has the strictest gun laws in the country, not to mention it was on military grounds. Matter of fact, places with high crime always seem to have the strictest gun laws, to little effect. And it's always strictest on "assault weapons", which are used in less than 1% of gun homicides, but 99% of news reports. It's almost like poverty is a better indicator of gun crime rather than gun laws.
5. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by jafiwam · 2013-09-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, hey, look at that! Shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this morning. Three or four victims in critical condition, including a DC cop!
  A gun free building, inside a gun free zone, inside a gun free city. Ironically enough, the tard quoted above can only think "if only we could make a gun free state or a gun free nation this wouldn't happen!"
  More of a failing strategy won't create a succeeding strategy.
6. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by TheSync · 2013-09-16 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  inside a gun free city
  DC is actually a bit less "gun free" now. There is no longer a complete ban on legally owned handguns.
  Following the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. Firearms must be registered with the police, owners undergo a NCIC background check and submit to fingerprinting. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare at what address it will be kept. There is a 10 day waiting period from purchase of firearm to possession, and a 30 day waiting period between purchases of firearms.
7. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  I think you're really missing the damn point here bub. One key thing this shows is not that everything must be regulated or it'll be turned into weapons, but that the 2nd amendment should be "The Right to Bear Technology", because that's what arms are. Think about cryptography. Now think about munitions, Now back to Cryptography
  Remember, certain types of software are actually considered munitions for the purpose of export. I wonder if that line of reasoning has ever been tested in court: "the government defines this software as a weapon, so the 2nd Amendment applies". That could turn into an interesting legal argument.
  It will be; they forced Defense Distributed to take down their CAD models because those models violated ITAR. If I recall correctly ITAR is typically used to prevent industrial suppliers from leaking secrets they agreed to in the first place, so Defense Distributed actually might have a good 1st amendment argument.
8. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-09-16 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I hope the 3D guns people stop before they ruin the 3D printed future for the rest of humanity.
  
  The "3D guns people" are not the ones who are pushing for restrictions here. Your argument is morally equivalent to blaming the rape victim because she was wearing a miniskirt in a bad neighborhood - it may well be "inviting" rape, but the blame is still with the rapist.
9. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't the reason the Liberator was pulled was an ITAR complaint in the first place?
  Then there's this short list of ITAR enforcement actions.
  I know these are specifically software, but back in the days of ITARed encryption, PGP had some crazy book shipping / OCR schemes to get around it, eventually leading to the pulling back of ITAR on encryption (see also Clipper chip, it's about the same time and the government's general 'meh' stance on encryption, at least in law, if not media).
10. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by swillden · 2013-09-16 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who thinks that these idiots are creating 3D printed guns solely to provoke TPTB into regulating 3D printers?
  The only one? Almost certainly not. Of course, all of you are wrong. The guys making the 3D-printed guns are quite clear about their rationale.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
11. Re:Giving 3D Printers A Bad Name... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Regulations on 3D printers will be about as effective as the DRM on the copy of Autocad I have somewhere on my computer.
Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 01:33 · Score: 0

Quick! Close down the V&A in London!
We have received reports that someone has seen a firearm there. Armed police are in attendance. Please move rapidly towards the exits and leave the building.
I think it belongs in an art museum as a by mark_reh · 2013-09-16 01:40 · Score: 0

cynical comment on America's infantile fascination with things that go "bang!". I hope they display it along side binky's and other such icons of preintellectual babyishness.
1. Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Just for your information, you sound like a fucking moron.
2. Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, your armed countrymen will continue to protect you and your loved ones with such examples of "preintellectual babyishness" despite your complete lack of respect for their means of safeguarding your well-being. It's in your best interest, too, because you are undoubtedly completely reliant on their protection and defenseless without them.
3. Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a by auric_dude · 2013-09-16 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I feel that this collection of golden guns should be in an art collection https://medium.com/war-is-boring/51e8ba9ea975 as it also concentrated upon men bad men with a fascination with things that go "bang" but YMMV.
4. Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-16 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Where do I find the exhibit of people who have an infantile obsession with what Americans do?
  Oops, already viewing it apparently.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:I think it belongs in an art museum as a by mark_reh · 2013-09-16 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't kill themselves or their family members first. All we need is a bunch of amateurs walking around with guns looking for any excuse to start shooting. Protect me? You gotta be kidding!
It is about the printer not the gun. by alexander_686 · 2013-09-16 01:46 · Score: 2

I think you are missing the point. The point is not that high quality design of the gun – the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer. It is kind of like getting your dog to sing. You don’t listen to the dog for it’s amazing voice, you are amazed that it can do it at all.
1. Re:It is about the printer not the gun. by Nidi62 · 2013-09-16 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are missing the point. The point is not that high quality design of the gun – the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer. It is kind of like getting your dog to sing. You don’t listen to the dog for it’s amazing voice, you are amazed that it can do it at all.
  To use your example, you wouldn't exhibit your singing dog by playing a recording of the song, you would show the dog actually singing. So if the point is the high quality output of a 3D printer, then display a 3D printer actually making something, rather than just the output of a 3D printer.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:It is about the printer not the gun. by alexander_686 · 2013-09-16 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  In reality I think they chose the gun not because it represented the highest level of art of the printer but because it is controversial and thus will draw people.
  To you point, in a more abstract view, I have a bias in museum for more solid, concert things – to anchor things to a point in time. The dog may have a bad day. Or the dog may be dead so all you get is a stuffed dog. So a recording is better. Would it be cool it see a 3D printer chugging away – Yes. But I would think that would be more of a science museum thing. But I think that is splitting hairs. The gun is a legitimate thing to display – a tangible thing to mark a point in history.
3. Re:It is about the printer not the gun. by Culture20 · 2013-09-16 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, if they're like any other museum, they'll have a few 3d printers around to print out plastic trinkets for a buck or two. Most will be pre-made, and you can select your model and watch the re-stock item get made (if you're patient enough).
4. Re:It is about the printer not the gun. by CastrTroy · 2013-09-16 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  But then perhaps they should be putting the printer on display, possibly in operation. Charge people to print out their own trinkets so the museum can generate some money. I'm sure there's thousands of other things you could print out that would be a much better example of "the high quality output of a 3D printer" than a 3d printed gun. You can't demonstrate the high quality of a printer, by showing a low quality product. It would be like demonstrating a high quality laser printer by displaying a 32x32 icon that's been scaled up to fill an entire page.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 02:13 · Score: 0

Dearest user, need you correct EVERYONE on slashdot over every little pedantic matter? It's clear that he (?) was being facetious.
should have just... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 02:26 · Score: 0

Should have just printed their own.
Yet a zip gun is so easy to make by Andover+Chick · 2013-09-16 03:02 · Score: 2

Why is the 3D gun such a big deal? Granted it is a milestone in 3D printing that a gun can be made. But really what else? Why is this anymore of a terrorist threat than a zip gun? Zip guns are often made in prisons by convicts and, in previous generations, by ghetto kids. All one needs is a strong tube, an improvised firing pin and an actuator (such as a rubber band) to drive the pin into the percussion cap.
1. Re:Yet a zip gun is so easy to make by hey! · 2013-09-16 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even think it counts as a milestone in 3D printing. It is essentially *is* a zip gun. The hard part of the finished *system*, whether it's a printed plastic gun or a zip gun, is in the ammunition. A "gun" such as this simply provides a source of mechanical impact to ignite the primer in a cartridge. A nail and rubber band can perform that trick.
  When you can 3D print, on a printer that is within the price range of a consumer, a gun that approaches the reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics of a cheap handgun, that'd be a milestone.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
2. Re:Yet a zip gun is so easy to make by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  Its about the history, not the piece itself.
  Even if you're right and the 3D gun is just a piece of plastic that scare idiots that knows no better, its still a nice story.
Reposting an AC to get this low-cost CNC seen by jeffmflanagan · 2013-09-16 04:24 · Score: 2

http://www.taigtools.com/cmill.html

Taig makes a decent little product that can do all but one of the operations on an ar-15 receiver.

If you want to vastly over complicate a homemade weapon, I'm sure you can find a design that can be milled.
A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-09-16 04:50 · Score: 1

Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly annoying?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by mark_reh · 2013-09-16 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not 1/2 as annoying as all the attention the press gives gun nuts.
Why stop at handguns? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 04:54 · Score: 0

Since John Coster-Mullen has made the fruits of his 'Little Boy' research available, full details of the first atomic bomb are available, to the level of engineering drawings.
With a decent sized 3-d printer it ought to be possible to create a complete gun-type nuclear weapon. Then you only need the Uranium-235....
1. Re:Why stop at handguns? by Valdrax · 2013-09-16 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Then you only need the Uranium-235....
  And the polonium-beryllium modulated neutron initiator. Oh and a tube and backplate for the 85 lb uranium "bullet" that's strong enough to withstand the "shot" towards the uranium ring. Titanium carbide isn't a material easily replaced by ABS plastic, after all. You also need the anvil to absorb the impact so the whole assembly doesn't go shooting out the front.
  Really, when you look over the design, the only part that can safely be replaced with plastic is the outer, aerodynamic shell of the bomb.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").