3D Printing Anarchists... Slightly ahead of ripping off GW.

[Denzark]

Right, these chaps' use of 3D printing, ostensibly to p*ss off the US Gubmint, makes the 'GW-is-Satan' Club's plans for ripping off minis, look like putting a whoopee cushion on Teach's chair:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10039822/First-3D-printed-gun-fired.html

[Mr Mystery]

Yes. Lets make guns available to all. What's that! They'll likely be untraceable? Well what could possibly go wrong??

Bloody nutters.

[Kyban]

It's probably best they start dealing with it now though, rather than when it becomes a real problem.

[Mr Mystery]

It's quite possible morons like this bloke will see restrictions put upon the ownership and access of 3D printers in certain countries.

I can see the UK doing this. Sure it won't keep them out the hands of criminals any more than any given ban, but it would prevent some otherwise rational person doin something stupid. Though granted, you'd still need the ammo, and one would guess due to necessary chemical reactions, they can't be printed off with any hope of success.

[Necron2.0]

Actually, this is nothing new. Back in the 50's and 60's, when guns were more readily available but street gangs weren't as flushed with cash (thank you "war on drugs"), zip guns were common, and that's all this is really. You could make a far more effective (and concealable) one with a simple stroll through a home improvement store:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

Heck, I've made a weapon that could punch right through a quarter inch (roughly 6mm) of plywood with nothing more sophisticated than a coat hanger, some tape, a post card and a length of plastic pipe.

[Mr Mystery]

It does make it significantly easier though. Why bugger about trying to build one, and hoping it doesn't simply blow up your hand, when you can print one off, and jury rig the firing pin?

[Necron2.0]

Well, I look at it this way - if you print one off, you're still spending a boat-load of money, and if it's plastic you'll get maybe one shot off before the thing is useless. The barrel will melt, the plastic will fracture, and at some point the thing will simply blow up (assuming it doesn't explode on you right off the bat). Not only that, the thing is a freakin’ brick – not concealable at all, and probably not accurate. It’d probably be more lethal as a bludgeon than as a firearm.

If you’re an average citizen, you’d have no reason to own this, except maybe as a curiosity, and then (if you’re smart) you’d never ever actually attempt to use it. If you’re an average citizen and you’re not smart enough not to use it, then you’re probably not smart enough to have the money necessary to invest in this thing in the first place. If you’re a criminal, you’ll either buy/steal a real gun or else you’ll have someone make you a proper zip gun. If you work for “one of those” government agencies … chances are your guns already are untraceable. In any of these cases, the existence of the template has no impact on the public welfare.

And again, making a zip gun is bone-head simple. Dangerous as hell, yes, and not at all advisable, but simple.

[Nabterayl]

Along those lines, I think the thing to keep in mind is that this actual product is not particularly dangerous. It is further evidence that, at some point in the future, it may be possible for a person (i) with no particular gunsmithing expertise to produce a reliable, accurate firearm, and/or (ii) to produce a gun that would not be detected by firearms detectors as they exist in 2013.

So I guess ... I'm glad that people are paying attention to what 3-D printing can do, but neither of those things is of particular concern to me. Society still has time to adjust. Firearms detectors will get better.

[Kirsten]

the gun nuts are already mental enough as it is, those idiots will still want to buy the proper metal penis extenders, but it is going to be a real issue for people likely to commit mass shootings.

[Mr Mystery]

Along those lines, I think the thing to keep in mind is that this actual product is not particularly dangerous. It is further evidence that, at some point in the future, it may be possible for a person (i) with no particular gunsmithing expertise to produce a reliable, accurate firearm, and/or (ii) to produce a gun that would not be detected by firearms detectors as they exist in 2013.

So I guess ... I'm glad that people are paying attention to what 3-D printing can do, but neither of those things is of particular concern to me. Society still has time to adjust. Firearms detectors will get better.

You also forgot, 'put reliable firearms in the hands of complete nutters (any extremist you care to imagine, disaffected teens, bitter/jealous exes etc) with no real way of controlling it.

You watch. This will cause restrictions on the availability of 3D printers...

[DarkLink]

And how are you going to ban 3d printers to prevent this sort of thing anyways? That technology is only going to be more and more ubiquitous, and anyone with a computer and some basic drafting skills could come up with a plausible set of plans. It'd be like trying to ban everything that you could possibly carve into a shiv.

I will say, though, that an all plastic gun will probably never be very dangerous relative to actual firearms. Plastic is a pretty poor material for a handgun. You'll probably only ever be able to put a few rounds through it before destroying the barrel, the odds of it blowing up in your face are much higher, it'll be terribly inaccurate and have an extremely short range, and you probably won't be able to get it to work with anything much bigger than a .22LR.



Oh, and Kirsten... you may not agree with the idea of buying and owning guns, but I ask that you at least show a little maturity and agree to disagree or something like that. You just insulted myself, most of my friends, and practically half of America depending on how strict your definition of gun nut is. Either grow up, or just don't post that crap.

[Kirsten]

I don't recall actually defining anything at all, so I think you are rather jumping to conclusions there. there is nothing wrong with owning a gun if you actually know how to use one, and are not a crazy gun nut who endangers everyone except the anticipated criminals, such as the guy who gave his five year old nephew a loaded rifle. I own a gun, have done for over a decade, I have it for shooting rabbits on the farm. To be fair, half of America deserves insulting sometimes, like most countries.

if you are interested, I would define the nuts as people like glen beck, the afore mentioned uncle, a lot of NRA members, the guy in this video, etc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

[Mr Mystery]

And how are you going to ban 3d printers to prevent this sort of thing anyways? That technology is only going to be more and more ubiquitous, and anyone with a computer and some basic drafting skills could come up with a plausible set of plans. It'd be like trying to ban everything that you could possibly carve into a shiv.

I will say, though, that an all plastic gun will probably never be very dangerous relative to actual firearms. Plastic is a pretty poor material for a handgun. You'll probably only ever be able to put a few rounds through it before destroying the barrel, the odds of it blowing up in your face are much higher, it'll be terribly inaccurate and have an extremely short range, and you probably won't be able to get it to work with anything much bigger than a .22LR.



Oh, and Kirsten... you may not agree with the idea of buying and owning guns, but I ask that you at least show a little maturity and agree to disagree or something like that. You just insulted myself, most of my friends, and practically half of America depending on how strict your definition of gun nut is. Either grow up, or just don't post that crap.

You ban and restrict them in exactly the same way as any other prohibited good. It's really not that hard. Sure, those who want it bad enough will find it, but it stops over proliferation...

[Denzark]

Actually I think it is an awesome murder/assasination weapon. In terms of if it is really inaccurate, you need to be up close. Small capacity if only single shot. Now I thought I saw plastic cartridges in the vid, so if they are plastic, it would not be hard to make the entire weapon and cartridge disappear, compared to gunmetal, which won't melt as easy. Also if the rounds are plastic the fragmentation on impact would be so massive that it would be hard to tie a shot to a given weapon even if caught with it.

AS highlighted, a nutter's wet dream.

[DeadPanda]

You ban and restrict them in exactly the same way as any other prohibited good. It's really not that hard. Sure, those who want it bad enough will find it, but it stops over proliferation...

You honestly believe that millions of Americans would willingly hand over their guns if the American government were able to pass legislation ? Never going to happen, and to be honest it's better it doesn't. Just for arguments sake say all honest, law abiding citizens did hand in their guns, the criminals would have a field day. Personally I don't think the general public in any given country should have access to firearms as they do in America, but as they already do, I can't imagine a practical way off enforcing realistic restrictions now.

[Kirsten]

I don't completely agree there, criminals are not automatically gun wielding types. they wont go on a thieving spree because people are less likely to have guns at home. a lot of gun crime is criminal against criminal, certainly in England if you look at crime figures, gun attacks are most common between gangs. in the US a home owner with a gun is many many times more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a gun than they are to injure a burglar, which suggests criminals are not generally bothered by victim's weapons.

[DeadPanda]

But do you think the average middle class man or woman would give up his or her gun, knowing full well those who have illegally obtained guns won't ?
I don't and if I were in that position neither would I.

[Nabterayl]

You honestly believe that millions of Americans would willingly hand over their guns if the American government were able to pass legislation ? Never going to happen, and to be honest it's better it doesn't. Just for arguments sake say all honest, law abiding citizens did hand in their guns, the criminals would have a field day. Personally I don't think the general public in any given country should have access to firearms as they do in America, but as they already do, I can't imagine a practical way off enforcing realistic restrictions now.
I think his point was that you can ban 3D printers, or unlicensed manufacturing of firearms, the same way you do now (the latter is already illegal). I'm still of the opinion that this isn't all that big a security deal, though. Plastic isn't undetectable. It's just hard to detect using the same methods you use to detect metal.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed, though I'm meaning the UK in particular.

[Kirsten]

But do you think the average middle class man or woman would give up his or her gun, knowing full well those who have illegally obtained guns won't ?
I don't and if I were in that position neither would I.

no I do not think they would, but I don't think it would automatically be a bad idea to try. Depends on social mentality, in Britain and Australia it has already worked, but I doubt it would in America.

But again, I don't think your average gun collector is going to care especially about plastic guns, criminals that want guns will get them, plastic or not. the issue is going to be the fruitcakes that do the mass shootings/attacks, because printed weapons open up a lot in terms of convenience. I imagine suicide rates will increase too, because it has been proven that suicide rates are directly affected by the convenience of the act. When anti jump barriers are put up on bridges it causes an immediate drop in suicides, people reconsider, they don't go and do it somewhere else, they simply don't do it. If someone has the potential to make their own gun without going to a store, people who have a printer already, or access to one, it will be a problem.

[DeadPanda]

Indeed, though I'm meaning the UK in particular.

My apologies.

[scadugenga]

What gets me (regardless of the plastic do it youself gun) is the shoddy reporting...in MAY no less, that Lanza used an AR15.

It was in the trunk. It was not used to shoot little kids.

Journalism...you failed again.

Dark, the plastic gun idea already appeared in a movie in the 90's. "In the Line of Fire" with Clint Eastwood. John Malkovitch makes an amazing villain.

[Kirsten]

love that film, and frankly any film with clint eastwood

[scadugenga]

Outside of the Westerns, I think Heartbreak Ridge was my favorite.

[Kirsten]

Gran Torino... spaghetti westerns my favourite films though

[DarkLink]

You ban and restrict them in exactly the same way as any other prohibited good. It's really not that hard. Sure, those who want it bad enough will find it, but it stops over proliferation...

You can build a 3d printer relatively easily. 3d printers are likely going to become a pretty important part of industry and business in not too long. The hardware's not super-complicated, and it's very difficult to regulate software, so I don't see why it would survive politically just because it can theoretically make a potentially dangerous object. I mean, seriously, look at the Boston Marathon bombing. A pressure cooker and some chemicals costs, well, not very much. Heck, they sell propane tanks. I doubt it would be that hard to figure out a mechanism to ignite one of those.


Actually I think it is an awesome murder/assasination weapon.

I don't know what advantages it possesses over some much more commonly available items would be, including the aformentioned homemade equivalent zip guns.


Just for arguments sake say all honest, law abiding citizens did hand in their guns, the criminals would have a field day.

Yeah. Funny how criminals seem to ignore the law sometimes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html


in the US a home owner with a gun is many many times more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a gun than they are to injure a burglar, which suggests criminals are not generally bothered by victim's weapons.

That's actually kind of a myth. Or more precisely, it's a very narrow view that ignores out the whole picture. In the majority of self-defense cases, no shots are actually fired, and even the most conservative of estimates (conservative in the statistical scientific sense, not the political one) indicate that guns are used in self defense to scare someone off (or fight back as well) literally dozens of times as frequently as they're used to commit a crime.

Plus, there's a town, I forget where, that passed a law requiring every home to own a gun, and shortly after the law passed home burglaries disappeared. Not dropped, but disappeared.

Point is, though, if you look at the whole picture, of all the things a family has to worry about, stuff like car accidents or ingesting household chemicals and the like are far bigger issues than gun related injuries.



if you are interested, I would define the nuts as people like glen beck, the afore mentioned uncle, a lot of NRA members, the guy in this video, etc:

Ok, we're cool then.


I imagine suicide rates will increase too, because it has been proven that suicide rates are directly affected by the convenience of the act. When anti jump barriers are put up on bridges it causes an immediate drop in suicides, people reconsider, they don't go and do it somewhere else, they simply don't do it. If someone has the potential to make their own gun without going to a store, people who have a printer already, or access to one, it will be a problem.

Maybe a drop in suicide-by-bridge, but what I've read (in particular a study on suicide in Australia after their big gun ban a decade or so ago) indicates that when, say, guns go away, or bridge barriers go up, suicides just start slitting their wrists or ingesting pills more frequently and there's very little effect on the overall suicide rate.



Dark, the plastic gun idea already appeared in a movie in the 90's. "In the Line of Fire" with Clint Eastwood. John Malkovitch makes an amazing villain.

Yeah, that was shortly after the Glock was introduced. Glocks are kind of infamous for being the first plastic-framed pistol, which naturally the media and liberals assumed the entire gun was plastic and there was a media scare similar to this stuff over 3d printers. Expect this to be a plot point in a crime/action thriller or something in a few years;)

[Nabterayl]

Expect this to be a plot point in a crime/action thriller or something in a few years;)
Already has been a time or two on TV crime procedurals, I believe. It's a topical problem only, though. We have the technology to detect plastic right now; you see it in use every day at the airport. Plastic is only "undetectable" by metal detectors. While metal detectors are the major technological method used to find firearms at security checkpoints right now, they don't have to remain that way. By the time people are producing guns and ammunition entirely out of nonmetallic components (which seems like a quixotic quest ... metals really are the best materials for some tasks), which is still at some point in the future, there's every reason to believe that our ability to detect nonmetallic firearms and ammunition will have improved.

[Mr Mystery]

Already has been a time or two on TV crime procedurals, I believe. It's a topical problem only, though. We have the technology to detect plastic right now; you see it in use every day at the airport. Plastic is only "undetectable" by metal detectors. While metal detectors are the major technological method used to find firearms at security checkpoints right now, they don't have to remain that way. By the time people are producing guns and ammunition entirely out of nonmetallic components (which seems like a quixotic quest ... metals really are the best materials for some tasks), which is still at some point in the future, there's every reason to believe that our ability to detect nonmetallic firearms and ammunition will have improved.

Not an expert by any stretch, but one imagines the gunpowder/round itself would be the next easiest thing to detect?

Also, saw a CSI on it just last week. Good episode, but not informing my debate with it.

And Darklink? Seriously? Just how easy is it to build your own 3D printer? Does that include the software needed for it? Would the resolution be any cop?

Seriously, this could pose a real risk to this technology. There's always a vested interest in restricting or outright suppressing anything. And for better or worse, this particular lunatic has just handed such an interested party an Ace in certain territories.

[DarkLink]

Actually, 3d printers have been a home-grown thing for a while. Just google (https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+3d+printer&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS484US484&aq=0&oq=homemade+3&aqs=chrome.0.0j57j0j5j62l2.2873j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) it. You probably can't make anything with awesome resolution or anything too fancy, but if you're looking for a crude one-off homemade gun then it's probably good enough.

Anyways, that's exactly my point. We've got a new technology that has the potential to revolutionize several industries and/or major aspects of how first world nations live, and politicians are going to try and stifle it because it's possible to make a really crappy gun? While 3d printers are currently big, expensive, and relatively easy to control who has access to them, they'll certainly become a whole lot cheaper and much more available. It's not like specialized mechanical equipment like a CNC machine

[Denzark]

I don't know what advantages it possesses over some much more commonly available items would be, including the aformentioned homemade equivalent zip guns.





Well read my post then numpty, I detailed how forensically this is advantageous!

[DrLove42]

I've just read the comments on this story on the BBC news website. A selection of the lowest voted ones;


No. This is not one more way for us to kill one another. It's one more way for us to PROTECT one another. Hopefully, soon, kids will be able to make these in their own bedrooms. And then go out in the street safe in the knowledge that they can take out the bad guys. My only worry is that it might reduce profits from the real armaments manufacturers. But I guess that's democracy in action.


We Americans are very tired of burying our children actually. That's why we need more guns. To PROTECT ourselves. I feel much happier to know that my seven year old daughter has a 'special' in her lunch-box so that, God forbid, some loser or crazy turns up at her school, she can take him out without any harm to herself. (She is a practised shooter, by the way. My wife and I have seen to that.)


Saying that mentally ill people and children could get hold of 3D-printed weapons is a pure demogogy.

Neither of those 2 categories would be intellectually capable of arranging/going through their manufacturing process.


When will these "scientists" stop? All they are doing is making God's creation a more dangerous place

God bless the idiot population of the internet (Small Print - The idiot population of the internet and the population who use guns may share a few members, but I make no claim all belong to one group...)

[Psychosplodge]

Saying that mentally ill people and children could get hold of 3D-printed weapons is a pure demogogy.

Neither of those 2 categories would be intellectually capable of arranging/going through their manufacturing process

That's hilarious in the level of ignorance displayed...

[Mr Mystery]

Sorry guys, but obvious Trolls are obvious....

[DarkLink]

Yeah... it's not hard to either find that sort of thing, regardless of the subject. I should post some comments from my phone's newsfeed app.


That's why we need more guns. To PROTECT ourselves.

Harvard scholars actually agrees with this, kind of (correlation does not imply causation, it just winks suggestively at it): http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/



Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

[Kirsten]

see DarkLink, those are gun nuts :p

[eldargal]

Harvard scholars actually agrees with this, kind of (correlation does not imply causation, it just winks suggestively at it): http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Not past the introduction and I've already found one glaring factual error in that study. It says that violent crime in the United Kingdom is higher than the US, this is technically true but we define violent crime significantly different than the US and we follow different methodologies when it comes to gathering data on it.

Violent crime in the US is defined as one of these offenses:

murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

But in Britain 'violent crime' is any crime targeted against a person including all assaults, all sexual offenses and all robberies.

They also lie outright when they say Britain enjoyed very low violent crime rates in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Rising crime rates, including violent crime, was an immense concern from 1750-1850. We founded a penal colony specifically to transport criminals too for gods sake, and contrary to popular belief they weren't all sent to Australia for stealing food. In the early 1800s there was such concern about the fragmentation of society that a massive church building scheme was enacted to try and introduce some morality into the country.

One error and one blatent lie before the introduction is even over doesn't fill me with confidence in the accuracy of their claims.:rolleyes:

[Mr Mystery]

Not past the introduction and I've already found one glaring factual error in that study. It says that violent crime in the United Kingdom is higher than the US, this is technically true but we define violent crime significantly different than the US and we follow different methodologies when it comes to gathering data on it.

Violent crime in the US is defined as one of these offenses:


But in Britain 'violent crime' is any crime targeted against a person including all assaults, all sexual offenses and all robberies.

They also lie outright when they say Britain enjoyed very low violent crime rates in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Rising crime rates, including violent crime, was an immense concern from 1750-1850. We founded a penal colony specifically to transport criminals too for gods sake, and contrary to popular belief they weren't all sent to Australia for stealing food. In the early 1800s there was such concern about the fragmentation of society that a massive church building scheme was enacted to try and introduce some morality into the country.

One error and one blatent lie before the introduction is even over doesn't fill me with confidence in the accuracy of their claims.:rolleyes:

Also worth noting that here in the UK, a gun crime can be something as daft as the 'fingers in the pocket' type thing. Our actual gun crimes, involving an actual proper 'hey that thing can fire a bullett' firearm figures are ridiculously low...

[DarkLink]

Well, I can't speak to the credentials of a couple of Harvard scholars. Still, forest for the trees. Even if some of the minor details (and yes, arguing over whether or not the US or UK has the higher crime rate is a minor detail when you compare either nation to a more genuinely violent and crime-ridden nation), if you can have a very large nation like the USA with very high gun ownership yet very low overall crime, it immediately undermines any claim that guns are the source of the problem. And as much as that doesn't mean that more guns directly reduces crime, it absolutely does mean that gun control is pointless.

In the case of 3d printers, banning printers because it's possible to make a semi-functional crappy firearm is incredibly stupid and shortsighted.


Also worth noting that here in the UK, a gun crime can be something as daft as the 'fingers in the pocket' type thing. Our actual gun crimes, involving an actual proper 'hey that thing can fire a bullett' firearm figures are ridiculously low...

But a low gun crime rate is irrelevant when the overall crime rate is still relatively... I don't want to say high, because both the USA and UK have very, very, very low crime rates in the grand scheme of things, but the point is reducing gun crime specifically tends to get replaced by other violent acts rather than reducing the overall crime rate.


see DarkLink, those are gun nuts :p

If your definition of gun nut is 'anyone who doesn't think that more guns equals more crime', then we're back to where we started:P.

[Kirsten]

well it definitely includes people who think putting one in their child's lunch box is a good idea.

[eldargal]

The issue is that when I can find a couple of significant errors in the introduction it doesn't create a good impression. How many more would I find if I read the whole thing and followed up on footnotes and citations? It's really easy to twist things to support an argument (ask any undergraduate desperate for citations). Of course everything else may be fine but it's not a good look in my opinion.

Part of the problem is the obsession with 'gun crime' as the be all and end all of gun control. The issue should be about stopping nutters from gunning down scores of people in one go and children killing themselves and other children. Contrary to popular belief those usually are not criminals. Going on a shooting rampage is really bad for your career as a criminal. Making it harder for morons and people with mental illnesses to get guns is not a bad thing.

[Gotthammer]

contrary to popular belief they weren't all sent to Australia for stealing food.

Yeah! My ancestor stole a book [/thuglife]

[Denzark]

Apparently guns don't necessarily prevent women from attack:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9969670/Do-guns-make-women-any-safer.html

[Kyban]

Apparently guns don't necessarily prevent women from attack:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9969670/Do-guns-make-women-any-safer.html

Not a very well written or objective article though, I wouldn't make the same assessment as you based on it.

[Denzark]

Au Contraire Kyban I haven't made any assessment - hence 'apparently' - if I thought it was fact

I would merely have written 'Guns Don't etc etc'. To make an assessment I would check many sources prior to making an objective judgement.

I do like the pink handled shooter though.

[Kyban]

I was just pointing out that the article didn't back up it's claim well, so even "apparently" would be taking it too much at face value.

I'm not sure a gun should be a fashion accessory but it is pretty funny, very similar to the Hello Kitty AKs going around a while back.

[Denzark]

Got to confess I prefer Uday Hussein's Gold one - its tasteless but sort of dictator chic.

[DarkLink]

Not a very well written or objective article though, I wouldn't make the same assessment as you based on it.

A problem I've found is that gun control seems to be a very difficult issue for writers to approach objectively, or for readers to read objectively for that matter. And it's such a broad, complex issue that you can nit-pick facts to death and dismiss pretty much any article, while ignoring the bigger picture and the stuff that's actually important.

For example, the aforementioned article doesn't present any sources, and it presents a random statistic and heavily implies that correlation means causation without presenting any argument to support that. Incidentally, a little research and the overall rape per 1000 people in North Dakota is .38, overall in the USA is .27, and .14 in New York (the state, not the city) according to neighborhoodscout.com. That's a lot less than 7 times. The overall message that violence is cultural I agree with fully, even though they don't present much of an argument to promote that either.

[Nabterayl]

Making it harder for morons and people with mental illnesses to get guns is not a bad thing.
No, it isn't, but I think that trying to ban 3D printers (which I don't think anybody has actually proposed?) is a good solution. It's already illegal to make a gun without being a registered firearms manufacturer, right? If we really must, make it a higher crime to do so with a 3D printer, but the technology itself is too important to throw out because people have the capability to use it for evil. We don't ban technology because it CAN be used for evil.

[White Tiger88]

Yes. Lets make guns available to all. What's that! They'll likely be untraceable? Well what could possibly go wrong??

Bloody nutters.

Don't worry i am sure the NRA will support this soon enough then maybe the idiot that designed this will shoot him self. Plastic, Unmarkable guns? YA GREAT IDEA!


(Also still more sane then the NRA....they just released this Bleeding Ex-GF target....)

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40049/nra-sells-an-ex-girlfriend-target-that-bleeds-when-you-shoot-it

[Mr Mystery]

No, it isn't, but I think that trying to ban 3D printers (which I don't think anybody has actually proposed?) is a good solution. It's already illegal to make a gun without being a registered firearms manufacturer, right? If we really must, make it a higher crime to do so with a 3D printer, but the technology itself is too important to throw out because people have the capability to use it for evil. We don't ban technology because it CAN be used for evil.

Ban? Likely not. But restrict their availability, quite possibly to licensed premises. But when you can make this sort of stuff on it, successfull.... it's an eye opener as to the benefits, and hazards of this technology.

[jgebi]

well personally I live in aus so, I WANT AN AR-15 :D. on a more serious note, I think their is a cause to lift the gun ban in Australia as all the major gangs already have these guns and use them a fair bit (if you want to find out about it ask some questions) so it would only seem fair to give them to us law abiding citizens. But on the other side theirs a good chance that they would allow thugs to use these guns, hmm well maybe it's best how it is...

[Kirsten]

I would point you jgebi to the daily show clip I posted earlier, they discuss the gun control in Australia and its' overwhelming success

[jgebi]

I live here and I know thats a joke and mostly a lie, the main gangs have all the guns you could ever want and only need a pistol to make someone do what they want and it's the same for the government, I'm not saying it doesn't work, but theirs other things done behind close doors that effect just how effective it is/isn't. Also it has just pushed up the amount of blades people buy and the training they get for them which is in fact more dangerous

[Kirsten]

well it obviously isn't a joke or a lie, gun crime down, suicide down, no mass shootings since the gun control came into force...

[jgebi]

well theirs no argument their but theirs also something to be said that we are a rather vunerable country, our army is to small to defend anything more then 3 cities (I did the math) and our army keeps shrinking and theirs no such thing as a civilian militia over here at all (well unless you call gangs one), but it dose work if you want to keep guns out of the common peoples hands but if you want something you can get it

[eldargal]

Australia is ideal for scorched earth policy, you wouldn't need a large army. Special forces and burninating all the things and you'll be fine*.


*Albeit burninated.

[Kirsten]

true enough, but then that will always be an issue, giving up on gun control just because 'people will get them if they really want them anyway' is a bad way to go in my opinion. I doubt anybody is going to invade Australia any time soon, who would want to? :p all those horrible deadly creatures would kill the invaders anyway, and Paul Hogan would finish off the rest. Besides, if somebody did invade just let them live in the middle, nobody would notice :p

[Wolfshade]

Australia is ideal for scorched earth policy, you wouldn't need a large army. Special forces and burninating all the things and you'll be fine*.


*Albeit burninated.

I thought the phrase would be cockburned...

[jgebi]

but thats where the roos live :'( I see what your point is though (I watched the whole thing I like it) but I think we should have a civil militia. I think this just comes down to me wanting to play with the big guns XD

[Kirsten]

the concern is always how long militias stay civil for though... I think you would probably be ok in Ozland, some sort of territorial army. playing with big guns is understandable, maybe what you really need is just a shooting range with fun toys :p

[jgebi]

I like the idea of walking around with a 200 shot MG though XD I think I might concede everything bar the civ army though as I can see where your coming from

[Kirsten]

just get one of these:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRAND-NEW-Nerf-Hasbro-N-Strike-Havok-Fire-EBF25-Vulcan-Blaster-/160878454863?pt=UK_Toys_Games_Outdoor_Toys_ET&hash=item25751a684f

[jgebi]

ehh but might make a good heavy bolter... I think this might come down to me being a teen and a little over the top/brainwashed with 40k lore... just a little

but back to the main point I think, printable guns good or bad? pros and cons ect

[Mr Mystery]

I just don't see the need for them.

Anyone wanting a legal gun, such as a collector, enthusiast or just for peace of mind, will get a proper one not likely to blow their hand off.

This will simply put guns (but not bullets, important distinction) in the hands of people who don't want others knowing they have them, until it's been pulled out on them.

Not much of an issue in the States, where it certainly seems boomsticks are plentiful... But a massive, massive issue for countries like the UK where we don't have a culture of gun ownership.

Overall, total arsebrain move.

[Wolfshade]

The obvious connotations is that plastic guns make traditional detection a much more challenging task, after all a small firing pin is the only metalic item, and this could easily be concealed as part of a belt buckle say.

The other thing is that science is out there. As soon as something is learnt by someone it cannot be unlearned and someone somewhere somewhen will also discover it.

Gun ownership in the USA is very high, but that is a little crude, at one stage the number of guns sold was about equal to the total population, but only about 1 in 3 has a gun, with those with guns very likely to own another. If we take out things which aren't hand guns, this goes down to about 1 in 5. Of course this is based on legally obtained guns, and does not count any illegally imported weapons (which I think would be a small fraction overall, though probably the fraction that has the highest publicity).

There is no strong relationship between gun ownership rates and homocide by gun rates.

[eldargal]

There is no strong relationship between gun ownership rates and homocide by gun rates.
Unless you are a woman, in which case you are several times more likely to be murdered if you live in a house with a firearm.

[Wolfshade]

Unless you are a woman, in which case you are several times more likely to be murdered if you live in a house with a firearm.

Several things,

Firstly:
Correlation =! Causation
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Secondly:
The statistics I had did not break down to sex of the owner of the weapon

Thirdly:
Cite your sources, I would like to see that data set. This is unlikely to be a one-to-one relationship, other factors would need to be taken into consideration as it could just be a higher incidence because there is a higer incidence of violence against partners in those cultures.

Fourthly:
I would imagine that those figures have very little bearing on voerall crime rates, in the same way that domestic violence has very little effect on overall "assault"-type statistics.

You know I am not saying it is not a problem, clearly Oscar Pistorious could not have shot his partner if he hadn't a gun for instance.

It also seems like you are saying that in a household where the woman is the only gun owner she should dispose of it for her own safety...

[Earl Harbinger]

Unless you are a woman, in which case you are several times more likely to be murdered if you live in a house with a firearm.

More likely yes, in the same sense that owning a pool makes it more likely that you would drown. Regardless of your gender the actual statistics prove that you are more likely to be killed by a car or a doctor than a gun. What the statistic you're using really means is that women in relationships especially ones in which they cohabitate are more likely to be killed due to domestic violence or murder suicides than single women. That relationships increase the probability of getting murdered is true and people should always try to avoid unhealthy/abusive relationship but it's not something to really worry about.

[eldargal]

But according to the gun lobby guns make us safer, but now apparently they don't because owning guns is dangerous?:rolleyes:
Source (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf).

[Gotthammer]

More likely yes, in the same sense that owning a pool makes it more likely that you would drown. Regardless of your gender the actual statistics prove that you are more likely to be killed by a car or a doctor than a gun. What the statistic you're using really means is that women in relationships especially ones in which they cohabitate are more likely to be killed due to domestic violence or murder suicides than single women. That relationships increase the probability of getting murdered is true and people should always try to avoid unhealthy/abusive relationship but it's not something to really worry about.

Did you really just say domestic violence is not something to worry about?

[Earl Harbinger]

Did you really just say domestic violence is not something to worry about?

I thought it was pretty clear that I stated that being afraid to enter into a relationship because being in a relationship increases the possibility of being victimized by domestic violence, since single people don't have a partner to be abused by, wasn't a reasonable fear or course of action.

[Earl Harbinger]

But according to the gun lobby guns make us safer, but now apparently they don't because owning guns is dangerous?:rolleyes:
Source (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf).

So your reasoning is that because out of the tens of millions of women in relationships in the US since 550 of them were murdered by their husbands/boyfriends with a firearm in 2002 then no woman should choose to live in a residence in which there is a firearm available for self defense? Owning a gun is a free choice, nobody is forced to live in a home with a gun if they would prefer not to do so. I wouldn't encourage anyone to base their decision to own a firearm on the fact that a tiny fraction of one percent of women in relationships got murdered by their significant other with a firearm.

[Zeshin]

I thought this thread was about 3D printed firearms.

On topic, it is legal to make your own firearms for personal use. You may never transfer or sell said firearm unless you have a valid and current FFL license. I don't see how a 3D printed gun would be illegal under current law assuming it was for personal use. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly

[DarkLink]

Gun ownership in the USA is very high, but that is a little crude, at one stage the number of guns sold was about equal to the total population, but only about 1 in 3 has a gun, with those with guns very likely to own another.

It's actually higher than that. The all-time low of the last fifty years was in like 1998, at 34 out of 100, but it's back up to about 43 out of 100 in 2012. It's also important to note that a lot of gun owners don't like announcing they've got guns for a number of reasons so even that number might be a little low.



If we take out things which aren't hand guns, this goes down to about 1 in 5. Of course this is based on legally obtained guns, and does not count any illegally imported weapons (which I think would be a small fraction overall, though probably the fraction that has the highest publicity).

And handguns are really the only thing you should be theoretically concerned about, they account for 80-90% of all criminal uses of firearms. All the people whining about "assault weapons" haven't bothered to actually look at any statistics.



There is no strong relationship between gun ownership rates and homocide by gun rates.

Kind of. Globally there's a very strong negative correlation (note that correlation does not imply causation) where the most violent nations have very few private gun owners and many of the least violent nations have plenty of guns. And that's not America skewing the results, either.

Edit:
http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg
http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg

Asia's (and a few random nations scattered around) the only place of any significant size that bucks the trend, but like I said, correlation does not imply causation. All in all, the only possible conclusion you can come to is that violence comes down to something other than gun ownership.

[Wolfshade]

But according to the gun lobby guns make us safer, but now apparently they don't because owning guns is dangerous?:rolleyes:
Source (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf).

Thanks for the source :)

Also, did this person read how not to format and present a paper, eugh, horrible.

The big trouble is with this is that it is data from last decade, which is old enough to be questionable reliability, or at least relevance, and all from one nationality, you have a young culture which is quite homozygous.

Mine is the smalls arms survey 2007 (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html)

[Kirsten]

just wait until I get a 3d printed greatsword, then you will all be sorry.

[Psychosplodge]

I thought this thread was about 3D printed firearms.

On topic, it is legal to make your own firearms for personal use. You may never transfer or sell said firearm unless you have a valid and current FFL license. I don't see how a 3D printed gun would be illegal under current law assuming it was for personal use. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly


dosen't it have to be detectable by airport metal detectors to be legal?

@DL the wide divisions on that map mask that the US rate is about four times the UK rate at 4.8 per 100k compared to 1.2 per 100k

google/wikipedia

[DarkLink]

And that's nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's also likely due to high crime rates in inner city ghettos while the rest of the nation has comparable crime rates. I've yet to find a study that addressed that question well, but just from what I've seen crime in America tends to be very concentrated to specific areas, and outside of those areas it's pretty comparable to Europe.

Also, that's the homicide rate, not the violent crime rate. The UK and US have pretty similar violent crime rates, in fact I believe the UK is higher, but as Eldargal mentioned violent crime is defined a little differently so it's hard to make a direct comparison.

Either way, you can't make the argument that more guns equals more crime, because I can point out multiple countries with fewer guns but much, much, much, much more crime than the USA for every UK-type country you can think of.


just wait until I get a 3d printed greatsword, then you will all be sorry.

Great for LARPing. Those dangerous criminal LARPers. What do they need dangerous-looking sword-like assault padded clubs for anyways.

[Kirsten]

who said it would be padded? I will kill you all with it

[scadugenga]

who said it would be padded? I will kill you all with it

Longbow trumps greatsword.

Sorry.

:D

[DarkLink]

I bet you could print lots of arrows with a 3d printer. There's no legitimate use for plastic arrows, we should ban 3d printers.

[Kirsten]

no chance, I am a sword master and deflect all arrows

[scadugenga]

You and your pointy ears? :P

[DarkLink]

And her 3d printed armor. (I avoided a chainmail bikini joke because of the feminist thread ;))

[Kirsten]

yes to both counts, pointy ears are sexy as

[scadugenga]

As what?

[DarkLink]

It's left up to your imagination.

[jgebi]

you do realis that my war hammer would decimate your sword :P and why use you imagination? theirs enough hentai/porn out their

[Wolfshade]

yes to both counts, pointy ears are sexy as

Gerbils

[Psychosplodge]

No Gerbils are horrible bitey little things that never want to go back in their cage.

[Wolfshade]

No Gerbils are horrible bitey little things that never want to go back in their cage.

Reminds me of someone else...

[White Tiger88]

Reminds me of someone else...

HEY! I go back in my cage when people give me treats.

[eldargal]

So your reasoning is that because out of the tens of millions of women in relationships in the US since 550 of them were murdered by their husbands/boyfriends with a firearm in 2002 then no woman should choose to live in a residence in which there is a firearm available for self defense? Owning a gun is a free choice, nobody is forced to live in a home with a gun if they would prefer not to do so. I wouldn't encourage anyone to base their decision to own a firearm on the fact that a tiny fraction of one percent of women in relationships got murdered by their significant other with a firearm.
No my reasoning is that if owning is supposed to make you safer but the opposite happens when women own a gun something is very wrong,

[Kirsten]

As what?

aww, no Robert Rankin fans here?

[DrLove42]

So the 3D gun has now been downloaded 100,000 times.

Not many of them have printers probably....but still shows the point

[Wolfshade]

Build your own :)

[Zeshin]

dosen't it have to be detectable by airport metal detectors to be legal? Indeed, until the end of this year when that provision expires I believe. Of course it's not like a criminal would give a frak about that anyway. Also metal parts in certain areas would make a printed polymer weapon much more survivable for continuous use.

[Earl Harbinger]

No my reasoning is that if owning is supposed to make you safer but the opposite happens when women own a gun something is very wrong,

Then your reasoning is horribly flawed. Being murdered by a husband or boyfriend with a firearm doesn't change the fact that firearms are best self defense weapon available for women. The study you referenced makes no mention of who was the owner of the firearm used in the 550 instances of a woman being murdered by her significant other. If a woman is dating a man and that man owns a gun and uses said gun to murder the woman that does nothing to disprove the NRA's point that owning a gun makes it easier for a woman to defend herself. In fact, that scenario proves the NRA's point becuase if the woman was also armed then her significant other probably would have been more hesitant to attempt to murder her. The facts you cite have no bearing on the defensive value of firearms, they merely show that a tiny fraction of of the female population in the US gets murdered by the significant other every year.

[Denzark]

So, why do 100,000 people want one of these plastic gats?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22464360

[Mr Mystery]

And Pandora's Box is well and truly opened.

[DarkLink]

I wonder if Sen. Yee realizes that metal detectors can still detect bullets?



No my reasoning is that if owning is supposed to make you safer but the opposite happens when women own a gun something is very wrong,

I have to agree that you're misconstruing the danger. How many of those women were murdered with their own firearm? Probably not very many. Frankly, a better choice of boyfriend would have been a much more relevant judgement call than the decision to own, or live in a residence with, a firearm. If you can't trust your significant other with your safety around firearms, you should probably find another significant other. Not to say that there isn't a risk of negligent discharges or the like, but owning a car is far, far, far, far more dangerous than owning a firearm. Whether you feel you can handle a firearm safely enough, or that your need for self defense is great enough, is an individual judgement call. Handwaving individual circumstances with broad generalizations isn't the best way to approach this.

[Kirsten]

the feeling of safety a gun gives is only an illusion though, you are far, far more likely to injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to ever use it in self defence.

[DeadPanda]

Personally think the biggest danger is these 3D printed guns could be more dangerous to the owners than any potential victim (if used for criminal purpose). They look so fragile.
If I were so inclined to use a gun for some nefarious cause, I think I would prefer a more proven make and model with more than one shot. Something a bit more reliable and didn't look like Lego.

[DarkLink]

the feeling of safety a gun gives is only an illusion though, you are far, far more likely to injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to ever use it in self defence.

You're somewhat more likely to injure yourself than injure another person. You're more likely to scare off a thug without firing a shot than you are to injure yourself, though. There are maybe 15-16,000 gun related emergency room visits each year. Though it's difficult to get accurate estimates for the number of times a firearms is used in self defense, the low estimates are ten times that number, and just like most other crimes those numbers are underreported. The US Center For Disease Control did a survey in 1994 that put that number at 498,000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354) (95% CI=266,000-729000). In case you can't do the math, that's 31 cases of self defense for every personal injury.

In fact, maybe you should buy a gun and just never buy ammo. You can still scare off most criminals, but it would take a miracle to shoot yourself. Of course, you're more likely to slip and fall off a ladder and break something than you are to shoot yourself in the first place, but whatever. Either way, don't toss around misleading facts.

[scadugenga]

Well, the government decided to take control of DEFCAD.org (the site where the plans were hosted). From their site:


This file has been removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls. Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.

The interesting note--is that while the government was quick to respond to this particular website--other websites, that teach you how to make explosive devices out of household materials, are still up and running quite nicely.

Personally, I think the whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion. The 3d printers cost thousands of dollars. For that money, buy a damned Sig. Or AR. Or something that isn't likely to cause self injury at some point.

Hell, you could go to Home Depot and buy the materials to make yourself a zip gun for just about what you would spend at Starbucks.

Edit: What also raises an eyebrow--is that there's nothing wrong or illegal about owning the plans to make a gun--it's the actual weapon that may be an issue. Sounds like a violation of the 1st Amendment to me, and more appropriately, an abuse of government power that they really don't have.

And anyways, the plans are already over the internet (torrent sites, etc.). The Box was opened, taking down one site will not somehow turn back time...

[Wolfshade]

the feeling of safety a gun gives is only an illusion though

Yup, two people with guns pointing at each other is just as safe as two people threatening each other without any form of weaponry...

I suggest everyone should read The Trigger (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trigger-Arthur-C-Clarke/dp/0006483836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368171587&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Trigger+clarke), quick only 1p on Amazon!

But the big issue is that knowledge cannot and does not want to be kept hidden away, once it is discovered it wants to be free!

Look at the various nuclear programmes around the world, they all testify to this.

[Necron2.0]

Australia is ideal for scorched earth policy, you wouldn't need a large army. Special forces and burninating all the things and you'll be fine*.


*Albeit burninated.

Sorry. Been sick so I've not been able to keep up with this. Just wanted to pay homage to something.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gz1DIIxmEE

TROGDOR!!!!
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/093/b/1/headbanger_by_starrz_jsc.gif

Ok, sorry. Carry on.

[eldargal]

I have to agree that you're misconstruing the danger. How many of those women were murdered with their own firearm? Probably not very many. Frankly, a better choice of boyfriend would have been a much more relevant judgement call than the decision to own, or live in a residence with, a firearm. If you can't trust your significant other with your safety around firearms, you should probably find another significant other. Not to say that there isn't a risk of negligent discharges or the like, but owning a car is far, far, far, far more dangerous than owning a firearm. Whether you feel you can handle a firearm safely enough, or that your need for self defense is great enough, is an individual judgement call. Handwaving individual circumstances with broad generalizations isn't the best way to approach this.
All irrelevant, having a gun is supposed to make them safer, it does not. Therefore the statement that owning a gun makes you safer is wrong.

[Mr Mystery]

Dragging us back to the topic....

I think that within the US, this isn't such a great shake. Better guns are available (seemingly) quite freely, and the culture there is well adapted to that.

But, consider us here in the UK. We have as much of a nutter problem as any western country. But not the guns. Majority of firearms offences here involve non-functional replicas. This however could change all that. We're not 'gun mature' here. They aren't part of our culture. Vast majority of Brits don't feel the need for a gun, mostly because we're exceptionally unlikely to encounter one. But now? Definite cause for concern. And all caused by a single tosser who felt he knows best....

[Denzark]

MM - non-functional replica is a bit oxymoronic - replicas or de-acs converted or restored to full functionality would be more accurate - and I wasn't aware that formed the lion's share of firearms offences, although I concede it is prevalent.

[Nabterayl]

Dragging us back to the topic....

I think that within the US, this isn't such a great shake. Better guns are available (seemingly) quite freely, and the culture there is well adapted to that.

But, consider us here in the UK. We have as much of a nutter problem as any western country. But not the guns. Majority of firearms offences here involve non-functional replicas. This however could change all that. We're not 'gun mature' here. They aren't part of our culture. Vast majority of Brits don't feel the need for a gun, mostly because we're exceptionally unlikely to encounter one. But now? Definite cause for concern.
I think that's an interesting point. I'm curious: what is your ammunition availability? You can't 3D print bullets yet, or propellant. Let's say I'm British and I have a 3D printer. I can assemble the actual gun with my 3D printer and a few metal pieces. Maybe I can assemble the casings with my 3D printer too. Let's say I also know how to hand load a cartridge. How easy is it to acquire the primer, propellant, and bullet for even a single loaded cartridge? After all, this weapon was assembled and fired in the US, where it is pretty easy to acquire those things.


And all caused by a single tosser who felt he knows best....
Well, I wouldn't say that it's really "caused" by one guy. He may be the first who has done it, but the promise of 3D printing from the beginning has been a brand new way to manufacture things, not a specific class of things such as "things that will not cause societal disruption." Somebody was bound to do this, if only as an engineering challenge. Heck, I'd be pretty shocked if actual firearm manufacturers were not 3D printing their product within the next hundred years.

[Mr Mystery]

MM - non-functional replica is a bit oxymoronic - replicas or de-acs converted or restored to full functionality would be more accurate - and I wasn't aware that formed the lion's share of firearms offences, although I concede it is prevalent.

Apparently it's true. Can't 100% vouch for it, but as it came from the BBC News (possibly Panorama) and wasn't used to peddle a particular view pint, I can't think of a reason for it to be an inventive interpretation of statistics, shall we say.


As for Nab, I call the guy a tosser not because of his little invention, but his frankly feckless attitude. He has no clue about the impact this could have.

Ammunition availability? Not a clue to be honest. Propellant is easy enough, as it can be home made fairly easily. Gun/black powder is a fairly easy formula as its components can be found pretty readily. It may not be terribly efficient I'll grant you, but it may not have to be overall. However, and speculative speculation is speculative, I'd be willing to wager ammo is easier to come by than a shooter. We do have guns, and gun clubs. They have to shoot something!

[Nabterayl]

As for Nab, I call the guy a tosser not because of his little invention, but his frankly feckless attitude. He has no clue about the impact this could have.
I'm not arguing with the tosser appellation ;) But I don't really think he "caused" anything in any meaningful sense.

[Mr Mystery]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But I can still see this causing restriction of availability on 3D Printers. Anyone with half a Brian knows its too late to stop the design profliferating. The printers? Not so much!

[DeadPanda]

Who's Brian ? And what's he got to do with this ?

[Wildeybeast]

I'm Brian and so is my wife.

[DeadPanda]

You've been a very naughty boy.

[Psychosplodge]

Go away!

[Mr Mystery]

I only call them my brians to confuse the zombie masses. So far, not a single zombie attack, let alone outbreak. So you can't tell me it's not working!

[Wolfshade]

I only call them my brians to confuse the zombie masses. So far, not a single zombie attack, let alone outbreak. So you can't tell me it's not working!

Would you like to buy my rock? It keeps tigers away.

[Mr Mystery]

No, I'm not scared of Tigers. We've been chinning them as a species for ages. Reckon I can take one.