Slashdot Mirror


Cody Wilson Wants To Help You Make a Gun

An anonymous reader writes In 2013 Cody Wilson posted online the design files needed to 3D print weapons. The files were downloaded at least 100,000 times before the U.S. State Department ordered him to take them down. Last fall he reemerged with a new project, the Ghost Gunner--a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine that could easily manufacture the lower receiver of an AR-15. It was a different approach toward the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world. But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components? Reporter Andrew Zaleski visited Wilson to check on the status of his project. What he found was a man in the throes of small-business hell. As Wilson puts it, "It's like the nightmare of a startup with the added complication that no one will allow you to do it anyway."

9 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. I'm mad at him by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..

    1. Re:I'm mad at him by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.

      Many of us believe the world would be a better place had they started with Playboy and never printed that damned bible.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  2. Re:M-16? by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.

    This is what I don't get.

    There is nothing illegal about what he is doing, and as far as I know no-one is touting new laws that will stop it. Yes there are some private companies that are refusing to do business with him, but as far I as I can see is their choice. Yet here he is making noise all over the place as if he is trying to attract attention like a 15 year old drama queen poking a stick at a wild animal. If he keeps doing this I can't see it ending well for someone, but I don't know if it will be Cody himself , or in fact collateral damage somewhere else.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  3. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Too much deference to government considered harmful.

    Toss Godwin the proverbial rubber chicken.

  4. Re:Thank you Cody by tmosley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It actually doesn't. A citizen militia overran a drug cartel in Mexico last year and stole their weapons because the government refused to protect them. Governments are limited by their ability to raise funds. Even with a printing press, that power is far from infinite.

    An armed populace is far more cost effective at keeping the peace.

  5. Re:M-16? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.

    Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

    Depends on the ideology, and the justification for not giving them business. Gay husbands are not gonna use their wedding photos as offensive weapons, and their is very little business reason for a photographer to turn down a wedding, so it's really hard for me to side with the photographer.

    OTOH, if the "KKK Make This County Lily-White By Any Means Necessary" coalition is probably not a non-profit you should sell shit. Unless can prove, in both the Courts of Law and public opinion, they're hipsters being ironic or something.

    In this case they seem to have excellent business reasons for turning this guy down. If you're a 3D printer manufacturer, and you want to sell printers in Latin America, it's probably a really bad idea for you to be associated with a right-leaning American group who can turn any home into a gun manufacturer with a $15-$20k printer. They have had experiences with the wealthy using private armies to destroy their governments, so they are highly unlikely to deb cool with that shit, which means there will be an entire continent on which your printer is illegal. Given that African states have problems with foreigners donating $20k to some crazy asshole who then turns it into a massive rebellion that kidnaps entire schools full of girls, that's another continent you're banned on. Add in the Chinese and Indians and you've risked being banned by half the human fucking race to sell printers to a population roughly the size of Canada (American gun hobbyists are only about 10% of our population).

    I strongly suspect that a) the printer company does not give a shit about the Second Amendment, but nonetheless b) their next model will have firmware that bricks it if you try to print out a Defense Distributed design, and auto-updates when new designs are made, and phones the manufacturer if it's altered in any way by the end-user.

  6. Re:1st Amendment by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Court has been rather clear about that. The right to do a thing does not mean a right to do a thing without rules. Establishing the right means that you can go to court to have them examine the balance between the rule-making concerns of the Legislature, and the rights of the individual. They quite frequently throw out laws that effectively ban things you have a right to do, by writing rules that make doing said thing impracticable. At the same time, they frequently uphold things like background checks where there is a clear rule-making reason for it, and it doesn't prevent the protected activity.

    Just like, driving is a privilege, but walking somewhere is a right. And yet, there are all sorts of rules regulating which part of the roadway you walk on at which time, and when you have to wait and walk later. Walking being a right means they can't ban you from the sidewalk (in most situations), but they can still tell you how you have to do it, within reason.

  7. Re:M-16? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.

    I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue. I know many liberals who either own guns or have no problem with guns. Personally, I appreciate a well made weapon and enjoy target shooting with a fine weapon. I also realize the importance of securing a weapon so that it doen't used in an inappropriate manner and believ the 2cd is a god amendment. A gun is a tool to be used properly and not some replacement for a functional penis. To me, owning a gun and supporting liberal ideals is not an existential contradiction, nor requires some bullshit rational to justify such a position. It's simply a choice I have aright to make. Some like to point to Switzerland as an example of why gun ownership doesn't mean guns are bad yet ignore the many liberal concepts the Swiss also embrace, such as universal healthcare or safe free abortions. To argue one point while ignoring the other is an existential conridiction to my admitly simple mind. YMMV. HAND.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Worse than approval is doing it right. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand the paperwork isn't bad. But then there's the fee and waiting to get approved. Someone told me it took a long time to get the approval.

    It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you. (And few things annoy them more than trying to get around their regulations.)

    They have a track record of boobytrapping the paperwork and geting people jailed for typos and minor slipups. Honest errors, misunderstanding of details of what you're supposed to do, missing a deadline, etc. Also stuff where THEY made the error but YOU can't prove it.

    They'll also just keep grinding you in court, even if you actually are legal, once they start in on you. They'll keep it up until you're broke and have to fold. They have a conviction percentage rate in the high 90s.

    Long felony sentences in federal prisons (and NOT the "country club" kind). They love to do things like giving you a count per round of ammunition or whatever, and run them consectutive, too. The federal prisons have no "time off for X" or probation: You serve the whole sentence. If you survive to get out, much of a lifetime later, you have lost your civil rights, including voting and owning or even handling guns (and you jepoardize any gun-owning friends or relatives by living with them or just being in their presence).

    Look it up on the web. Lots of horror stories out there. The number of people in federal prison for gun paperwork "crimes" is staggering.

    If you want to do this, keep it legal and keep a low profile. Really build it in your state. Really never take it out of state. Really never sell it. (I shudder to think how one handles inheritance of such a gun ...) To do otherwise is to open the giant economy can of worms.

    Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way