Beyond the Liberator: A 3D-Printed Plastic 9mm Semi-Auto Pistol

Profiled at Ars Technica is the (mostly) 3D-printed semi-auto pistol design from a West Virginia maker known as Derwood. The PLA-based design, which Derwood calls the Shuty MP-1, isn't quite all-plastic; like others that are roughly similar, it utilizes metal for a few parts that aren't practical in plastic. (Ars says just the barrel and springs, but it looks like metal is used for the guide rod and an internal plate, as well as for the screws that hold the whole thing together.) The core of the gun is a lower that bears a strong resemblance to an AR-15's, but the assembled gun looks to me more like a Skorpion submachine gun. Unlike Cody Wilson's single-shot Liberator pistol (mentioned here a few times before), the design files are not available for download -- at least not yet: "Not long," Derwood writes in a comment on a YouTube video of the pistol's assembly.

Comments

How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

3D printer prints some parts of a gun, but none of the important bits. Who gives a fuck, seriously?
But wait, 3D printing!!!

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[gman003]

Well, which parts are "important"?

For someone trying to make an all-3d-printed gun (perhaps to prove or improve the technology), it's the barrel, chamber, firing pin, and so on, the functional bits that are placed under the most stress. For them, using metal, particularly finely-machined metal parts, quite defeats the purpose. The only parts they might even consider making out of metal would be the ones plastic is literally unable to do, like the firing pin or springs - and even then, they'd try to make it out of some simple, readily-available part you can find at Home Depot.

For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).

And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[i.r.id10t]

For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).

How is followign the law trying to bypass a firearm law? While making for your own self is legal, it is NOT legal if you are a "prohibited person" when it comes to firearm ownership.

And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).

Forming brass is trivial if there is a suitable parent case. Suitable can mean "same diameter rim and case head size and perfectly straight". Of course you need accurate case dimensions but you can cast the chamber and take measurements if you have something totally unknown, and then have a custom set of forming and reloading dies made. Unfortunately, the really weird stuff is primer dependent - the various obsolete rimfire rounds (44 rimfire for old Henry rifles, etc) or pinfire rounds.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms

Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[melted]

The important bit there is the barrel, by far the hardest thing to make by hand. The barrel is not considered to be "the gun", and you can buy it online without any regulation. If you can then print a decent lower at home, you have your own firearm.

Not that there's anything wrong with having a firearm, of course. If you really want one, you can build a shotgun out of $30 worth of parts from your local Home Depot.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed) ... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).

Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[slashdot_commentator]

Firearm law avoidance, like tax avoidance, is not illegal activity.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[dunkelfalke]

Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important, but this escapes many people who think they are an island and thus that socialism is a bad word.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

Are you insane. Plenty rights are natural. I use the "alone in a forest" test. Is it something you can do when you're alone in the forest? Yes, it's a natural right and the only way you don't have it is if somebody stops you from doing it.

That's not a right, that's just physics. Don't get it twisted. Rights are conventions that humans have invented. Physics just happens.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[Jane Q. Public]

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.

Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.

Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.

Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).

20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.

So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.

And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

If you wanted to get 3D printing regulated

[dbIII]

If you wanted to get 3D printing regulated then making a lot of attention seeking noise about how people can make zip guns using it is a good way to do it.

You can't even do the barrel and ABS plastic is far less suitable for the other parts than even most hardwoods so it's stirring up hysteria over nothing IMHO.

Will we see fuss about dremel made guns next?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[bill_mcgonigle]

You miss the point. Nobody who wants a good gun wants a 3D-printed gun in 2016 (check back in a decade). The issue is always the government oppression that arises from such happenings. Free Speech still falls under 'stuff that matters'. Maybe you weren't around for CryptoWar I when we illegally wore T-shirts with the RSA algorithm on it to trade shows.

http://www.cypherspace.org/ada...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[He Who Has No Name]

The vast majority of Slashdot readers are also objective thinkers and (generally) less prone to emotional-hysterics-on-command, which tends to make them balk at the core structure of gun control ideology.

The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies. That's not a behavior pattern frequently found in hardcore tech folks.

Guns save lives

[zapadnik]

Guns save lives - Thomas Sowell
http://www.creators.com/opinio...

Summary: in the US, where there are around 300 million personal firearms.
There are around 30,000 firearms deaths per year. 20,000 firearms deaths are self-inflicted (suicide) and would occur whether firearms were available for self-defense or not. of other the 10,000 firearms deaths, many are gang violence. However, set against the 10,000 non-suicide gun deaths is around 100,000 violence crimes prevented by citizens. In many cases the firearm is not discharged, the mere presentation is enough to deter the crime.

In cases such as a string 26-year old male attacker who waited for the family to go out the only defense a 12-year old girl had against rape and possibly murder at the hands of the much-stronger attacker was the pink rifle her father had given her. She was able to stop the attacker in her home and drive him off. And there are many, many similar cases like this.

Whether or not you believe citizens have a right to self-defense - or if you think it is somehow morally superior' to be defenseless and slaughtered like sheep either by criminals that don't obey gun control laws; or by any of the mass-murdering Governments (National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, Cuban Socialism, Vietnamese Socialism, East German Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, and various Islamist regimes) that murdered over 200 million of their *own* citizens in peacetime - then the statistics are clear: GUNS SAVE LIVES.

The best defense against a bad guy/jihadi with a gun really is good guys with guns. This is proven over and over and over again.

Now if you don't like firearms then please don't obtain and learn how to use one - but it is illogical and immoral to say that competent individuals cannot have access to firearms for self-defense. Even Europeans are slowly starting to grok this (shotguns are pretty much sold out in Austria as their country buckles under invasion of a large number of unruly youths who don't share European cultural norms about not stealing, not raping and not trashing the joint). I wish this were not the reality of today's world, but unfortunately it is.

Re:Guns save lives

[drinkypoo]

Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed, and an impulsive act.

If people are genetically predisposed to suicide, how do we still have suicide? Should be a self-solving problem. Perhaps that's really not the driving factor.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[TheReaperD]

.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers but, I don't see them designing ones out of PVC or other base plastics. Maybe one day with either multi-material systems or metal fabrication systems they can. The scary part is when high powered rifle rounds will be able to be used on a 3D printed gun. I'm not thrilled about the prospect but, I'm realistic enough that I know there's no stopping it.

metal guide rod

[roc97007]

The guide rod doesn't have to be metal. The stock Glock guide rod is plastic, although Glock owners often replace it with steel or tungsten.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of Slashdot readers ....

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

Re: Militant Slashdot

[bangular]

I frankly do not understand gun control in America. Gun control seems to boil down to
1) Getting rid of "assault rifles"
2) Consistent background checks
3) Magazine sizes

That's great and all, but the vast majority of gun violence are handguns. Even more, the .22lr of all things seems to be the deadliest caliber. Whether or not you are for gun control, let's discuss the actual killer: handguns. All this other stuff is just a distraction.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[DaHat]

Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

Oh?

"it's coming right for us!" *bang*

That deer was looking awful vicious...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather thought that the actual killer was the actual killer.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[blindseer]

The reason you don't understand this is because you are ignorant (perhaps willingly so) of how the people that want to ban weapons have thought out their plan. These people know that banning handguns, or most any weapon really, is the goal but they also know that banning handguns is difficult politically.

To understand this best we must go back in time by nearly a century. The National Firearms Act of 1934 placed a prohibitively high tax on a number of weapons, among them were machine guns, firearm report suppressors ("silencers"), "destructive devices" (grenades, landmines, large bore ammunition, etc.), the curious catch-all "any other weapon", and the also curious "short barreled" rifles and shotguns.

Let's talk about that "short barrel" category. The 1934 NFA originally had the intent to ban handguns and to prevent people from making handgun analogs from the not banned rifles and shotguns they made sure that people would not be allowed to shorten the barrels on these "long guns". Because of resistance from a number of powerful groups the ban on handguns went away but the "short barrel" designation remained. This law created the distinction among "handguns", "long guns", and "short barrel" arms where none existed before.

Forty years later the group Handgun Control Incorporated was created, with the (obvious) intent to ban handguns. Again this was met with resistance politically, few people in politics wanted to be associated with a group of that name. In 1981 James Brady was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. HCI found themselves a new "mascot" and renamed themselves to the Brady Campaign. James Brady was shot with a .22 caliber revolver, which seems like a perfect mascot for an organization that wanted to ban handguns.

At about 1989 HCI renamed themselves Brady Campaign but still kept their original intent on banning handguns. The difference now is that they didn't wear this intent on their sleeves. It was now more politically acceptable to be an advocate for those injured by "gun violence" in general, leaving out that the ultimate goal is still banning handguns if not all firearms.

As the decades passed the banning of handguns became even less politically viable. People wanted personal defense weapons and a handgun makes a reasonable weapon for this task. The people today that call for "reasonable" gun control can draw a direct lineage to those people that wanted to ban handguns nearly a century ago. Given the age of many of these politicians and public figures I have to wonder if these aren't the same people that signed the 1934 National Firearms Act into law.

These bans on "assault weapons", magazine limitations, and background checks are all part of the boiling the frog, oiling up that slippery slope, or what have you that will lead us to banning handguns. These people have tried for over a century now to ban handguns but the majority of the people won't have it. They are still working on sharpening the point of the wedge between people and their personal defense arms. They think that by creating the idea that limits on some arms should bring us down the path to limits on all arms. That once we create the idea that the government should be able to dictate with what tools we are permitted to defend ourselves that at some future point in time the government would be able to dictate that the people cannot have any tools of self defense.

This has been going on for a long time in the USA, the best that they've been able to do is place some rather trivial limits on the people's ability to arm themselves. What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant. They can make it illegal to manufacture these weapons but the people that feel the government should not be able to dictate how the people may arm themselves will find these bans exceedingly difficult to enforce.

This is a question I've asked myself many times, is a law really a law if the govern

Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[blindseer]

I've read a lot of posts of people exclaiming 3D printed handguns a waste of time, or an effort to expand one's "manhood" by building weapons. I've read an article on 3D printed handguns before where the creator was asked why they chose to print a handgun of all things. In this case it was a 3D printed Model 1911, printed using a number of direct printing metal techniques but the answer to this question stuck with me and I believe answers the question quite well.

The creator of this 3D printed handgun explained the choice of printing a handgun this way. People understand what a handgun does and what it is used for. People understand that a handgun is a device with many intricate parts placed under considerable wear, pressures, and so forth. Whatever a handgun is made from must be durable. A handgun built with poor tolerances is not likely to function. A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim. It is also something that can be manufactured within the size limits of their machines.

Someone could 3D print a clock, for example, to show how a useful item can be built with amazing precision with a 3D printer. To show how a 3D printer can make something that is durable could mean printing a carpenter hammer, or anvil. Perhaps building an adjustable wrench, socket set, or any of a number of tools that need to hold up to extreme stresses and tight tolerances would show the capabilities of a 3D printer. Those are also rather mundane and perhaps a number of people that do not use tools regularly will not understand the difficulty in building such a tool with a 3D printer. These are also tools that do not have much value since people can buy these items relatively cheaply most anywhere.

People choose to 3D print a handgun because it is hard to do. Someone successful in this has then demonstrated their ability to build any of a number of more common and mundane items we use every day. It also doesn't hurt that 3D printed handguns makes politicians nervous and gets clicks on the internet.

Go print a clock and see how many clicks you get on your website, then print an anvil and do the same. Now print a handgun and hope that you've got enough bandwidth to handle the load.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies.

Nonsense. The ideology of political control depends on that, with or without guns. Just look around the world, and you see governments using this very strategy in all countries, all government types and irrespective of gun controls or not.

The only difference is that people without guns react with demonstrations and civil unrest, while people with guns react with mass shootings and conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile the government doesn't care because if it comes to it, you have your guns, but they have tanks and planes.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[blindseer]

Apparently so since much of the desire to ban these weapons was the result of gang warfare during Prohibition.

Funny that, history repeating itself. Alcohol prohibition resulted in violence not seen before it's implementation. Now today people don't shoot each other over alcohol because it is available at nearly every convenience store with nothing more than proving you are an adult and have the ability to pay for it.

Perhaps we would not have "drug addled scum burning down your cities" if these drugs were not banned. Just a thought. It appears that there are at least some people that agree with me given that a number of states in the USA have legalized marijuana with no real threats to society to show for it.

Also, how does banning possession of a handgun supposed to prevent "drug addled scum" from setting the city on fire? I do know that even drug addled scum have a nearly instinctual fear of getting shot if they threaten to burn down someone's home or business. It would seem to follow that by removing the handguns, and therefore diminish the homeowner's ability to defend their home, would embolden the scum to burn the world down.

Gun control is not crime control. You control crime by controlling the criminals.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[johanw]

My Swiss Army Knife can kill people too. Although I use it mostly to remove screws from computers.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[He Who Has No Name]

Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.

That is the true fear at the root of politicians advocating civilian disarmament: that their desired policies would ultimately be so repulsive to their subjects that they can't risk what they see as a high likelihood of being defied or overthrown by armed force. They are scared their desires will provoke their own doom, unless their subjects have been denied any choice except compliance.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

Handguns are used in over 80% of all gun murders. Besides, The .22 is plenty deadly. (I linked that particular page to forestall anyone linking pages about how the .22 supposedly does the most killin'.)

Re:Militant Slashdot

[jafiwam]

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...

It is if you use a modern expanding hollow point bullet with a decent weight and charge. Though, I'd be surprised if this thing could handle P+ or +P+ charges for long.

There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[jafiwam]

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

You should try to get out of the city occasionally.

The line between "pistol" and "rifle" is a fake one defined by the ATF where "designed to be fired with one hand" and "designed to be set to the shoulder to fire" is the definition. Caliber and ballistic capabilities are not included in the distinction. Then there are dimensions and other stuff tacked onto those definitions, firearms that fall out of those dimensions are AOWs (Any Other Weapon) or SBS or SBRs.

So it IS quite possible to be using a "pistol" that's basically a rifle with rifle-like ballistic results but with pistol legality (whatever that happens to be at that location.)

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

No, a handgun is not a optimal weapon for defending yourself. If someone is breaking into my house, I will grab the handgun beside my bed and go get my 12 gauge, which is optimal for my home.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

Can you read? I wrote 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. That has nothing to do with your statistic.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Karmashock]

It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment. What about that do people not understand? Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment.

Absent that, this is a hostile action to subvert our democracy. And actions taken to subvert the government's ability to enact illegal legislation are all to the good.

This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global. Gun regulations from pole to pole will be so much paper.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

AR-15s are becoming popular for game hunting, despite the limitations. A lighter load than some other calibers/'energy': .22 LR HV - 152 .223/5.56x45 - 1254 (typical AR-15 load) .22-250 - 1624 (varmint rifle) .30-30 Win - 1888 (my favorite deer rifle in Maine) .300 Savage - 2280 (My mom's favorite deer rifle, model 99) .308 Win/7.62 - 2617 (AK-47 IIRC, also a modern sniper round) .300-06 Springfield - 2920 (Still an excellent sniper round)

It would seem an AR-15 is a poor choice for a deer rifle, but swap out the FMJ for Hell, the M885A1 looks suspiciously like my mom's favorite round,the bronze point. I wonder if it is available for civilians. But rechamber the AR-15 in 300AAC (7.62) and get a very serviceable hunting rifle. Trivially easy to do, and converting back simple. I would not load the clip more than 5 rounds. as deer rarely stick around after the first two reports, so you're shooting them in the butt which is undesirable. So you either shoot accurately or chase them through the brush. Your choice.

So indeed, an AR-15 could be a 'hunting rifle', and the occasional id10t^H^H^H^H^H patriot carries one here in Arizona, just because they can.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well unlike most of Europe there are large predators in the US. That is why some times I carry a large handgun, but then I only carry when I am out in the woods as there are things like bears, wolves, cougars, and bobcats for large predators there. Also my handgun would not be a good choice for home defense or regular carry as it is huge (hard to conceal) and very powerful (will make a very big hole in the target). Also my healthy fear of the large predators isn't unfounded I have had a good number of close encounters with the large predators in the north woods of Minnesota and haven't had to shoot any of the critters as a single shot into a tree has scared them off but if it didn't the next would kill them. I also try to stay clear of them as I generally know where they are but they do move around so you never know for sure. It sucks being stalked by wolves, coming around a corner to see bear trying to get something in a hollow log, having a cougar walk up to your deer stand with you in it, seeing a mamma bear send her cubs up a tree, or getting back to camp and see a bobcat trying to get into your trunk to get the half a pack of bacon left in the cooler in there.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

"I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people."

Actually, I understood this in 5th grade, when the Second Amendment was read in its entirety. Two years later I carried a .410 shotgun to hunt with my family, two years after that graduating to the .30-30. Then, a year later, my American History teacher indulged us in a deeper study of the Second Amendment, which left no doubt in my mind of the intent and effect of that Amendment, and the radical nature of our Constitution. People from other nations have largely been taught nothing about that, for what should be obvious reasons.

The world hates freedom.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

"What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant."

What I find inevitable is that as the government (and those who oppose my rights) realize that I can actually do what I was always permitted to, they must find a way to prevent that, as if I should never have been permitted to ever.

It has been legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use in the U.S. You cannot legally sell it, nor even give it way,without being licensed etc. And you cannot accept such a weapon from someone, though I do not k now off hand what happens if, for example, one is bequeathed to you on the death of the maker.

The gun control advocates understand entirely that desktop fabrication is a huge risk to the success of their campaign to deny Americans the ownership of guns. They will try to ban the distribution of files and descriptions necessary to fabricate these guns, which would have the effect of also banning any number of books etc on conventional gunsmithing and desktop fabrication, and then we will also have a First Amendment case to argue.

This has happened before, for instance when courts put public records online, permitting common citizens easy access to these public records... Yup, pressure mounted to reclassify these as not public when it became practical for your neighbor to actually access them...

Do not trust your government.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.

I don't think anyone has used a fully automatic weapon to shoot up a school. Granted the San Bernardino shooters had a fully auto weapon (maybe 2) but that was illegally modified so it isn't like they just went down to the store and picked one up.

Such weapons are not that useful for hunting, and of somewhat dubious value for self defense

What weapons, fully auto machine guns that no one has used in a school shooting or semi automatic weapons? I assume you mean semi automatic ones which are very effective for hunting. They have been used for years. My grandfather used a semi automatic Remington 11-48 for pheasant, duck, and goose hunting for years from about 1950 until he gave up hunting in the late 70s. For years I deer hunted with a Romanian SKS as the SKS basically replaced the lever action .30-30 as the bare bones entry level deer rifle. Lots of people use to hunt with old M1 Garands that they got through the CMP and I wouldn't mind using one for deer hunting. The .223 AR15 type weapons are a very popular and effective varmint rifle for things like packs of coyotes, and prairie dogs.

I can't speak to the self defense aspect but a semi auto shotgun seems like it would be pretty good for home defense. Also I don't think may people are carrying around a long gun for self defense, most people prefer a much smaller handgun.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[chmod a x mojo]

1: No automatic weapons were used in any of the shootings from Columbine on. As far as I'm aware there were no shootings of the general public with automatic weapons since the valentines day massacre in Chicago, and that was mobster on mobster.

2: Again, no one hunts with automatic weapons.

3: By your reasoning there should not be any freedom of the press on the internet since there was no internet when that particular amendment was written, only printing presses. Kind of silly to judge that evolved technology is completely different than the base, isn't it?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[ValentineMSmith]

I'm going to hope that this is just an unintentional lack of knowledge on your end. If you're actually open to reading facts, please keep reading. Otherwise, feel free to ignore this.

First, in response to the comment about people that keep "shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons." This is incorrect. The phrase "automatic weapon" refers to a weapon that can discharge more than one projectile due to a single action (pulling a trigger or actuating some other mechanism). As far as crimes with automatic weapons go, they are so low as to be lost in the underflow of the number of other assaults. In 1934, the National Firearms Act regulated automatic weapons, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and "other weapons". Since that date, you have to pay a $200 tax just to be allowed to purchase the weapon. You also have to undergo a background check even more thorough than most class 3 Federal Firearms Dealers. The automatic weapon must be registered and kept at a known location at all times, and the Feds can knock on your door at any time of the day or night and demand that you produce that weapon immediately for their inspection. If you can't, it's a federal felony.

Since 1934, there have been 2 murders committed with registered automatic weapons. As far as unregistered automatic weapons go, numbers vary, but are again so low as to be statistically insignificant. According to GunCite ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_con... ), 4 police officers were killed between 1983 and 1992. And even when targeting groups that are thought to have large numbers of automatic weapons, virtually none of the firearms recovered in raids on drug houses, gangs, and so on were automatic. For all intents and purposes, automatic weapons are not used in crime.

And, since 1986 when the NFA was amended, only automatic weapons made before that date are now available for purchase by the public. This amendment ended out pricing most automatic weapons out of the reach of the standard consumer, and for those that do buy them, they're usually purchased as investments not, not with the intent to shoot them.

As far as the second half of your comment goes, I'm going to assume you're talking about so called "assault weapons", or what are more accurately termed modern sporting rifles (MSRs). And when people think of an MSR, they think generally of an AR-15 variant (go Google what the AR in AR-15 stands for. Hint: it does NOT stand for Automatic Rifle). What is so bad about them?

1: You say "their only real purpose seems to be for killing lots of people efficiently." First, the caliber of most AR-15 variants (5.56x45 NATO, or .223 Remington (and yes, the specs are not completely equivalent between those to calibers, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume they are)) is small enough (and fast enough) that the rounds tend to not do all that much damage to a man-sized target. In fact, in many states, it's illegal to hunt deer with a .223, as it's likely to only wound and not kill it. So, no, an AR-15 is not a particularly efficient killing machine. If you don't believe me on this, go find an Iraq/Afghanistan vet. If they're willing to talk to you about their experiences, ask them about how effective the M-4 was at killing the enemy. Or use Google. The stories are out there. The only reason the US Military uses 5.56x45 instead of 7.62x54 (the old .308 Springfield cartridge that got your (great)grandfather through World War II) is that you can carry 70% more 5.56 than you can 7.62 for the same weight and size of package.

2: Because the AR-15 platform is so modular, my wife and I can shoot the same rifle. My arms are a little shorter than hers. I can adjust the stock. Because it has a pistol grip, I can hold it more comfortably. If you take a look at the definition of an assault rifle from the 1994 US ban, it involved a rifle that could accept a detachable

Re:Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

You can buy AR-platform rifles not only in .300 Blackout but also readily in .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO. There's an upper/lower kit from some company meant for the back woods which swaps out parts from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf. Armalite also carries a .338 Lapua AR-30 so that's a popular large--game hunting (and sniper) round.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

The second amendment to the constitution guarantees all US citizens the right to carry firearms. You can debate all you like the moral implications of it, but until the second amendment is repealed, it is the right of every US citizen to carry firearms.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

As a point of order both of the civilian uses there were pre-NFA, since the NFA automatic weapons haven't been popular with criminals.

Re:Ah well.

[fredgiblet]

There was a spike in 2015, but before that we were at the lowest murder rate since the late 60s. I'd hazard a guess that most people in the US literally don't know a single person that's been murdered, I sure don't, though admittedly I'm not very social. I know one person that committed suicide and another that almost certainly did the same, no one that was murdered. The reality is that we are safer than we've been in decades, but since we've got 350+ million people there's still enough going on to fill the news, and since fear sells that what they put on.