Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Ballistics Scientists: 3D-Printed Guns Are 'of No Use To Anyone'

Posted by Soulskill on from the might-hurt-if-you-throw-them-at-somebody dept.

New submitter graveyardjohn writes: "The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'"

16 of 490 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm fucking sick of seeing 3D printers associated with guns.

    1. Re:Good by Algae_94 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd really rather not wrestle a moose.

    2. Re:Good by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality" --Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.

      Only those who wish to force their beliefs on others have an obligation to back them up.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. But... by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

    So this is a win.

    1. Re:But... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Violent crime is violent crime.

      Baloney. Every nation defines it differently, just as your link states, which is what makes it convenient for spinning fanciful narratives like yours.

      Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US. I.e., their "violent crime" is 97% less lethal than ours. And then you use that to argue the type of weapon doesn't matter, or that guns reduce suffering. Please.

    2. Re:But... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you?

      You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.

    3. Re:But... by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate.

      That's not true. The homicide rate in the United Kingdom is 1.2 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Canada is 1.6. The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0 And the homicide rate for the US is 4.8 per 100,000. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you're so inclined ("List of Countries By Intentional Homicide Rate") but it's clear you've already made up your mind and are simply going to ignore any facts that don't support your preconceptions. Yes, the human tendency to murder other humans is a powerful force, and so a certain percentage of people who would otherwise be murdered by guns in the UK are murdered with knives, poison, or cricket bats, because those guns aren't available. But the end result of strict gun control is a per-capita homicide rate that is around 25% of the U.S. rate in the UK and 33% in Canada and 20% in Australia. The statistics don't lie, gun control saves lives.

      I think it's time to start talking about real gun control in the United States. I'm not talking about banning a few models of assault rifles; I think the end goal of gun-control should be keeping rapid-fire weapons out of the public hands, which means requiring licensing for or simply banning all revolvers, semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles, creating something similar to the gun control laws seen in the UK. We've tried letting things run wild and all it's gotten us is thousands of deaths a year and an endless series of mass shootings. The next logical step is implementing the kinds of firearms controls seen in Canada and the United Kingdom, and I think the left needs to start pushing this seriously. No, Obama isn't out to get your guns... and it's a shame, because dammit, he SHOULD be. And if that takes a constitutional amendment, then we should pass a constitutional amendment- I'll line up to vote for that. Yes, it's in the constitution, but so was slavery, and we outgrew that. Times change, and a law written for muzzle-loaders is no longer useful in an age of machine guns. I'm tired of seeing thousands of people senselessly slaughtered every year because the political debate is held hostage by a handful of extremists. For too long we've played it the NRA's way and refused to talk about gun control. We need to start talking about gun control again, and nothing should be off the table.

    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Statistics show that you are more likely to be shot to death in the USA than in England. However, statistics show that you are more likely to be beaten to death with fists and boots in the USA than in England. In fact more people are beaten to death per year in the USA than are murdered by all weapons in England. (That's not adjusted for population size, of course; many more people in the USA than in England.)

      There is a book called The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy. It's worth reading, but I can summarize it: violence correlates well with cultural factors and does not correlate well with regulation of weapons. England had low crime rates, then they banned guns, then they had low crime rates. Anti-gunners point to England as a "success story" but it isn't.

      And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse. Did banning guns lead to increased crime? Can't say because correlation does not prove causation. But definitely we can't say that banning guns made England less violent.

      And the majority of states in the USA now allow concealed carry of firearms. Violent crime has not increased; it has decreased. Again, we cannot prove that concealed carry caused the decrease; but we can trivially disprove the claims by the anti-gunners that letting people carry firearms will lead to horrible bloodbaths of violence. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

      The perfect world would have all the bad guys disarmed, and all the good guys well-protected somehow. The real world shows that the bad guys are all armed, no matter what, full stop. Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).

      The best we can do, as a society, is to provide a robust economy full of opportunity, combined with locking up those few who are violent repeat offenders. The vast majority of people, including the poor and including minorities, are decent people who don't commit crimes. There are a few people who cause a great deal of havoc and the best we can do is to lock them up.

      But we absolutely should allow the law-abiding to protect themselves. Not only is it common sense, but the Second Amendment protects that right in the USA. (If you are going to claim that the Second Amendment is limited to things like the National Guard, I will ask you why it is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn't protect an individual right, and why you think your opinion carries more weight than the Supreme Court's opinion.)

    5. Re:But... by locust · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your guns are going to mean precious little in a few years. Ask any Afghan. Almost everyone has an AK-47. Predator drones don't care. It will be the same here in the good old US of A. Drones will be used in police actions internally in the US because they are cheaper to replace & train than en-vivo police officers.

      Today, arming the population, means teaching them math, science, technical skills, and the civics to know when to put them to use against the government of the day.

    6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude - both of your links state that the 200% claim is bogus and that the violent crime rates in UK/US are closer than thought.

      I understand why you've failed to grasp this - you only skimmed the headline - but both articles aim to discuss that claim, and both end up refuting it.

      Thanks for arguing our case for us though.

  3. Others exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet others have been fired multiple times, successfully.

    Either the UK-NBIS sucks at 3D printing, or this is disinformation.

  4. Re:Sounds like police propaganda. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'

  5. Also, cars are of no use to anyone by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'

    In a related story, the U.K. Horse and Buggy Registration Service thinks the automobile will be 'of no use to anyone.' They show a vehicle being driven on a test track. It travels a short distance at 10 mph, then the engine blows a rod and one wheel falls off. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of petrol, anyone attempting to drive one would probably main or even kill themselves."

  6. Even if true by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect the test was setup to fail, to prove a predetermined agenda, but even if it was 100% true, we are just starting out with this use for printed materials, and it takes time to perfect new technologies. Even if it *never* becomes viable, it still helped push the limits of the technology and will benefit other uses.

    Pretty sad when if people were to operate that way " well, it doesn't work so no point in trying"... If that was always the case, we would still be living in caves hoping we dont get eaten.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  7. Re:Good thing technology never moves forward by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe they intentionally did a bad job so others wouldn't even try?

  8. Can't the Brits get it right? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There has already been videos out showing how in the US there are viable 3D printed guns, that fire just fine.

    Why can't the UK just download those plans and do it right?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........