Slashdot Mirror
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.
3D printer prints some parts of a gun, but none of the important bits. Who gives a fuck, seriously?
But wait, 3D printing!!!
It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.
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.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My Swiss Army Knife can kill people too. Although I use it mostly to remove screws from computers.
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.)
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.
Time to offend someone
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
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music