backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by web2dot0.. on Jun 4 at 2:09 PM

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton

The Founding Fathers of the United States were firm advocates of citizens having the option to own firearms.  While today's guns are a far cry from those handmade, carefully crafted muskets of yore, the Founding Fathers would likely be enthused by the recent trend of do-it-yourself gun-making using 3D printers.

While lacking the gas-fed firing of "automatic"/"assault" weapons, 3D gun designs have grown increasingly reliable and sophisticated, making them a practical tool for self defense.  And with the advent of relatively affordable 3D printers -- like the Afinia H-Series (price: $1,599 USD) -- 3D guns are poised to explode in use among America's numerous gun enthusiasts.

I. Obama Administration "Treads Upon" Defense Distributed

But many in the U.S. federal government today don't agree with the sentiments of the Founding Fathers are pushing aggressively to ban 3D firearms, including President Barack Obama (D).

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of State sent a letter to Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas, Austin law student, who is the founder of Defense Distributed, an organization of 3D gun enthusiasts that post schematics online for the DIY firearms.

The Liberator
Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, has been ordered by the Obama administration's State Department to take its 3D printed gun schematics -- including "The Liberator" (pictured) offline. [Image Source: Forbes]

The government is demanding that Mr. Wilson remove plans for his most popular model -- "The Liberator" -- and nine other designs from his group's website Defcad.org.  The government is essentially looking to take down the gun schematics on a technicality.  It's arguing that by allowing the schematics to be downloaded overseas, Mr. Wilson may be violating the arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR § 127.1).  The State Department is "graciously" allowing him to take down the design in exchange for leniency.

Officials write:

Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled.

This means that all data should be removed from public acces immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.

II. The Liberator is Still Alive and Well on The Pirate Bay

Mr. Wilson begrudgingly agreed to comply with the request.  Legally he believes that his guns may be protected under the safe harbor clause of the ITAR, which provides exemptions for non-profit research and public interest projects.  

However, he says the key obstacle is that the safe harbor clause is outdated; it allows projects like his to distribute materials via printed works in libraries or bookstores.  But he argues the internet is today's bookstore/library, given its wealth of text and public access.

Regardless of whether his appeal of the takedown succeeds, the government's efforts to pry The Liberator, also known as the "Wiki Gun", from the public's cold dead hands may be harder than the government thinks.  Plans for the gun have been downloaded 100,000 times, mostly in the U.S. Several copies have been uploaded to The Pirate Bay, which has precious few (cares) to give regarding U.S. censors.  

The Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay is hosting the 3D gun blueprints. [Image Source: World Under Control]

Defense Distributed's own files were not hosted on its servers, but rather were distributed by Kim Dotcom's new file-sharing supersite, Mega.  Mr. Wilson would not reveal whether the files would be removed from Mega, so it seems likely his group is simply removing the link, but that Mega users will still be able to snag the plans.

III. Single-Use 3D-Printed Gun Costs ~$5 USD 

Defense Distributed was found in mid-2012 and aimed to raise $20,000 USD via a crowd-source initiative.  Initially it sought funds for "the Wiki Weapon" via IndieGogo, but the crowdsourcing fundraising platform yanked DD's petition due to alleged terms-of-service violations.  Since then DD has raised a significant portion of the funds, anyhow, via its PayPal donate link on its website.  DD also endured the seizure of its leased 3D printer for unspecified reasons by the manufacturer Stratasys.


Early 3D guns suffered melting of the barrel after only a single shot.  But the 0.380 caliber weapon -- while officially being single-shot -- is capable of firing as many as six shots in fire testing.  3D plastic sights and silencers for the weapon have been developed as well.  DD is working on more advanced designs capable of longer-term use.

The Liberator Liberator in pieces
The Liberator fires a 0.380-caliber round. [Image Source: Forbes]

The Liberator costs around $5 USD [source] to make out of ABS plastic, once you have the printer.  Gun control advocates are concerned about people sneaking the gun through airport or other security checkpoints for use in terrorism/crimes.  On the other hand, gun advocates might also argued that gun-toting citizens could also smuggle the weapon and use it to defend against a terrorist attack or crime, should law enforcement officials be absent or incapacitated.  
 
Carrying plastic weapons through airport security is, of course, illegal in the U.S., so even the latter use would be a serious "crime" from the federal government's perspective.

Source: Forbes



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Where do you get the ammo?
By PrinceGaz on 5/10/2013 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 3
Guns are not readily available here in the UK (you have to be verified fit to own them by a doctor and the local police force), so printing your own gun would be nice for self-defence purposes against buglers breaking into your home.

The problem is you can't print the bullets! So you could have as many guns as you like, but not be able to use them.

Does it really only cost US$5 to make a gun using a plastic-printer? With a typical colour inkjet printer, US$5 wouldn't get you much further than printing out a few full-size pictures of the gun! :p




RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By NicodemusMM on 5/10/2013 5:57:12 PM , Rating: 5
I really have nothing against a good bugler. They could come in and play for a bit as long as I'm not asleep.

Sorry.. I couldn't prevent myself from laughing at the idea of buglers breaking in.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2013 9:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
PrinceGaz, I was going to post on here that defending yourself or your family would land you in jail, but I just did a quick search - is my understanding correct? Did they recently abolish the duty to retreat in the UK in a self defense situation?

Anyway, good luck finding ammo if guns are almost entirely banned. You probably imagine that the entire US is filled with a bunch of gun-toters, but you might be surprised to learn that there are places that you can be charged with a crime if you accidentally leave a spent cartridge (nothing more than a harmless piece of brass) in your range bag or in your car. I have to imagine if we have laws like that, yours have to be much worse.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By StevoLincolnite on 5/11/2013 4:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have to imagine if we have laws like that, yours have to be much worse.


Well, guns are banned here in Australia.
And with these plastic guns, the government looks to regulate 3D printers.
I mean come on, really? :P


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By lagomorpha on 5/11/2013 6:36:25 AM , Rating: 4
Reminds me of how the Soviets regulated typewriters and got a sample from each one so that they could determine what typewriter was responsible for typing anti-Soviet propaganda.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Cront on 5/12/2013 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
Guns are definitely not banned in Australia we just have sensible Gun Control laws.

It really isn't difficult to obtain a licence and permit to own Category A and B firearms in Australia.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By maugrimtr on 5/13/2013 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 3
I think Americans may like to exaggerate gun control outside of the US. If I take Ireland, as an example, being from there originally you just need an €80 firearms license and suitable security for the firearm(s). The licensing system is akin to gun registration and you can apply in any local police station subject to background checks. Handguns and assault/military rifles/mgs are heavily restricted. Most (as in almost all) people currently apply for a license to obtain a shotgun or hunting rifle.

I currently own one of each along with two other family members owning others giving us a total of about 10 firearms in the event of the government becoming a dictatorship ;). You can obtain a firearms license from age 16 and from age 14 for training licenses. Ammunition is a simple matter of travelling a few miles to the local gun shop.

Irish law maintains the right the defend yourself and your property with the use of, if necessary, lethal force and a firearm. In 2010, the law was "clarified" to make that right explicit given the prediliction of some to spout that you must "retreat" before a intruder (likely linked the UK issues of the day). Retreat is, of course, not always an option. I'd prefer to blast an armed intruder with my shotgun if there was any doubt about my or my family's future health.

Just figured I'd chime in for some perspective. I'm guessing Ireland is up there with Australia and UK in some folks' minds as having banned firearms when we've really only banned handguns and anything remotely connected to the "military" tag. Granted, that may amount to a "ban" anyway for some folk.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Adonlude on 5/13/2013 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
We Americans fled the gun grabbing opression of "The Queen", killed the Brits that tried to stop us, and decided that the right to bear arms was a god given right necessary in the formation of America.

Civil liberties and God given rights are not liscenced. Many of us Americans have forgotten that and many in government wish to eradicate the one god given right the people maintain to eradicate the government when the people decide it is necessary.

The government should always fear the people. Strange how it never works out that way.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By slunkius on 5/14/2013 1:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
in the age of drones, what difference will you make with your musket? in case of really opressive government willing to use means necessary, you can arm yourself with kitchen knife with as much success. end result will be the same


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By mmatis on 5/14/2013 8:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
As long as there are drone operators, guns are a valuable tool. And could you please tell me how far you get into the 2nd Amendment until the word "gun" or "guns" is first mentioned? You might want to note the word they used is "arms". Which includes FAR MORE than mere guns. The "ultimate" arm of the day was the cannon. And those were indeed owned by Mere Citizens, both before AND AFTER the war.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By EricMartello on 5/15/2013 3:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we just have sensible Gun Control laws.


There is no such thing. Most gun control laws are borne out of ignorance, stupidity and fear. They do nothing to reduce "gun violence" and, if anything, increase violent crimes and assaults because the only people giving up their weapons are law-abiding individuals.

In Australia, the crime rates spiked in 1997 after their gun grab in 1996 went official. Same thing happened in DC when handguns were outlawed and Chicago is a cesspool of gun crime despite an outright ban on guns (although a high amount of all US gun crime is gang-related and centered within urban areas).

quote:
Handguns and assault/military rifles/mgs are heavily restricted. Most (as in almost all) people currently apply for a license to obtain a shotgun or hunting rifle.


When the people allow their government to heavily control weapons they put themselves at a distinct disadvantage and open themselves up to unchecked exploitation. Hunting and sporting purposes are SECONDARY uses for weapons - the primary reason for having an armed populace is the same as the reason the US has a second amendment - to keep the government in check and remind elected officials that they work for the people.

quote:
in the age of drones, what difference will you make with your musket? in case of really opressive government willing to use means necessary, you can arm yourself with kitchen knife with as much success. end result will be the same


You must not have been paying much attention to the wars of recent and not so recent history. Insurgency against a larger, better armed force is quite effective using handguns, rifles and improvised weapons.

When the majority of the population is well-armed it will not be difficult to take down a government that has ceased serving the interests of the people.

quote:
You might want to note the word they used is "arms". Which includes FAR MORE than mere guns. The "ultimate" arm of the day was the cannon. And those were indeed owned by Mere Citizens, both before AND AFTER the war.


This is exactly correct.

The true meaning of the second amendment is that the citizens not only have a right, but a DUTY to maintain arms that are at least comparable to what current generation military infantry would use, for the purposes of defending the state from foreign threats as well as threats from within.

Unfortunately, the result of the US being the only superpower and a relatively safe and stable country has caused many citizens to drop their guard and believe that they have no obligation to do anything to maintain our country. That's a disturbing trend in itself.

That all being said - these printed weapons are nothing new as it has been possible to manufacture weapons from metal with a CNC machine and purchased CAD files. In the US this is also completely legal to do without any kind of licensing, so long as the weapon complies with the NFA and is not resold or given to another party.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By web2dot0 on 6/4/2013 2:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
You can bare all the arms you want, but you aren't gonna shoot down too many drone, and stealth bombers.

Seriously, if the gov't wants you dead, you'll be dead. Not even if you hide in a bunker.

This is the 21st century. Wars are fought through economy means, not with weapons anymore.

Take down a gov't? You can take down your local law enforcement (which have nothing to do with gov't "taking over you", but you can't take down the US Army.

Yoiu want to keep the gov't in check? make those elected officials do something by changing all the tax loophole so coroporations gets taxed.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By martin5000 on 5/12/2013 11:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
There has never been a "duty to retreat", you just couldn't use unreasonable force. And there were plenty of cases where criminals were killed and no charges brought.

Now it has changed to make it even more in favour of the home owner because there was a general feeling that people couldn't protect themselves (which was actually not true). It all stemmed from the Tony Martin case; he went to jail, but that's because he shot a burglar in the back when they were running off.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2013 8:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There has never been a "duty to retreat", you just couldn't use unreasonable force.


Problem is a jury full of idiots who weren't there, and didn't feel their lives threatened, were the ones deciding what and wasn't "unreasonable".

If my life is legitimately threatened by someone, there's really no such thing as "unreasonable". Within reason, of course :)


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By martin5000 on 5/13/2013 6:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that's why the law was changed, so in effect you can now use unreasonable force. It was also to stop police even arresting* people and questioning them if they attacked a burglar.

* Note that arresting in the UK is different than the US, I believe it's more akin to being detained in the US.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Kiffberet on 5/13/2013 7:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
So a couple of kids sneak into someones house at night looking for something to steal, but are met by the owner.
They realise that they're not going to get anything without a bit of trouble so turn and flee.

Owner pulls out his double barrled shotgun and shoots the burglar in the back as he's climbing out the window.

Even an idiot jurer will tell you that his life was not being threatened and he just murdered the burglar.

You need to read the details about the case, rather than the histeria in the right wing tabloids...


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By martin5000 on 5/13/2013 8:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
You need to consider the state of mind someone else's actions have put you in your own home.

Also, I didn't say it was wrong he was jailed, it's just a fact that the case highlighted the issue of home defence.

It was right he went to jail, apart from anything else it was an illegally owned gun. (That's one of the details of the case by the way, the one that I don't know anything about because I only read right wing hysteria)...


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2013 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So a couple of kids sneak into someones house at night looking for something to steal, but are met by the owner.


Sorry but I support "Castle" policies. If you break into someones house, I really have no sympathy for what happens to you after that. There's NO legitimate reasons for breaking into someone's house.

See this is the problem with discussing these things after the fact. You cannot possibly know what it was like. Do you even know how it feels to wake up and realize someone broke into your house and is still inside it with you? It's dark, you can't see anything. Who are they? What are their intentions? What are they going to do with you? Are your kids safe? Are they in their rooms?

So please don't sit here and paint this absurdly linear picture of :

1. Man breaks in
2. Owner shoots man in back
3. Owner big bad murderer

Give me a break. We're not robots! If you've never been in that situation, you cannot possibly relate OR judge someone who's lived through it.

quote:
You need to read the details about the case, rather than the histeria in the right wing tabloids...


I was making a general point. Not actually addressing that one case.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By web2dot0 on 6/4/2013 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying that if a burgular robs your place, but decides to flee when met with force, you are entitled to do whatever you want to the burgular?

I don't know, like ....

Shoot him in the back and blow his head off and blow him up some more? Where do you draw the line between "self defense" and "murder"? That's why you have laws, so we can make it less ambiguous.

Acting all manly and start a shooting spree doesn't make you a man or brave. When you are confronting a burglar, shooting a person should be your LAST RESORT, and any gun owner should be well trained for this sort of scenarios. Otherwise, DONT OWN A GUN. If you can't handle the responsibility, get someone else to do the dirty work.

Keep harping on "state of mind" is total BS.


RE: Where do you get the ammo?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2013 10:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
The plastic is pretty cheap. Businesses that offer 3D printing services do so by the amount of time it takes to print something, not really from the cost of the plastic.

There are also many different grades of plastic that are available for different kinds of 3D printers.

We have two guys at work that have one. One bought one complete. The other guy bought a kit that he had to assemble himself.


I'd be concerned about the safety of
By spamreader1 on 5/10/2013 2:06:58 PM , Rating: 5
The plastic having some fault that could cause a chamber explosion and leave the shooter or some bystander injured.

This from someone who had a chamber explosion as a teenager with a potato cannon, who was lucky that no-one was injured. They are "not cool".




RE: I'd be concerned about the safety of
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
The same thing can happen with real guns...particularly if you're not good at cleaning them.

Anything and everything that involves an explosion is dangerous. And that's what a bullet is - an explosion that is (hopefully) controlled and directed by the design of the weapon.


By spamreader1 on 5/10/2013 2:56:53 PM , Rating: 4
I suppose I was meaning more about the metallurgy, or lack of. ABS vs. hardened steel barrels/chambers, as well as a lack of quality control.


By Kiffberet on 5/13/2013 7:26:56 AM , Rating: 1
Chances are the plastic gun explodes in your face!!
So while you may be 'defending' yourself, you just end up with no face and a r@ped ass.


RE: I'd be concerned about the safety of
By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2013 10:35:51 AM , Rating: 1
they could have metal bands to strengthen them


RE: I'd be concerned about the safety of
By 0ldman on 5/11/2013 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Metal bands won't do much against the plastic fatigue. It would still warp, crack, etc.

A metal barrel insert would probably solve all problems.


By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2013 8:06:59 PM , Rating: 1
I meant they would keep the gun from blowing up in your face


RE: I'd be concerned about the safety of
By notathome on 5/11/2013 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
Potato guns are so cool, you just do not know how to build one.


By spamreader1 on 5/15/2013 6:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I meant the chamber explosion wasn't cool. We had a working gun, and decided to "improve" upon it. Still, can't say I'd build one again or recommend someone to do so.


Printing isn't the problem
By deltaend on 5/10/2013 4:53:03 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't read every comment, but it seems to me that being able to print these isn't the issue. Having the ability to print low cost volumes of one-shot guns by the general public will lead to someone trying to market the idea and sell one-shot plastic guns to the general public at $25 each. This would mean that children could have easy access to a weapon that could kill someone. I'm all for having guns, but for adults having them and using them in a correct manner.




RE: Printing isn't the problem
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2013 10:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
$25 guns doesn't mean children would have easy access to them. Plus, I don't know about your state, but mine requires you to be 21 to buy "handgun" ammunition (I realize there are pistols that fire rifle cartridges and rifles that fire pistol cartridges). How are children going to get the ammo? And let's talk about this "someone" who will market these guns. Unless he's a federally licensed gun dealer, he'll end up in prison pretty quickly.

I say all this but I still consider this thing little more than a novelty. IMO it's too dangerous and not nearly effective enough to be taken seriously. I bet someone could come up with plans on how to build a single-shot gun made from $25 in materials at your local hardware store that definitely will not blow up in your hand. Sure, you couldn't print it out, but would you seriously trade safety for ease of assembly?


RE: Printing isn't the problem
By deltaend on 5/11/2013 12:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
True, I agree that it can already be done, but the difference is that it takes thought and skill to make/use those guns. These could be pre-built and operate simply enough for anyone to use them. Regarding the idea that something won't end up in the hands of kids, well, everything from drugs to regular guns ends up in the hands of kids so there should be no doubt that these would too.

One shot guns don't do much for defense as they seem more designed for offense. Shoot someone at point-blank range with this gun and then melt it down. It would be very hard to convict you if you didn't have a 3D printer and merely purchased it off the street from someone for $25.

Regarding being an FFL dealer... does that mean that drug dealers are going to get licenses to sell their product? People who intend to break the law aren't going to get a license to sell this crap, they will sell it because they will be making a profit, no matter how many times they get caught and thrown in jail. If you don't believe me, simply look at anyone making money off of drug sales. They get caught, thrown in jail but then they get out and do it all over again because their is money to be made on the street.


RE: Printing isn't the problem
By Schadenfroh on 5/11/2013 10:48:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One shot guns don't do much for defense


So, standard capacity magazines are bad because they fire too many shots and one shot guns are bad because they... fire too few shots?


RE: Printing isn't the problem
By SPOOFE on 5/13/2013 5:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One shot guns don't do much for defense

Most firearm defense is achieved without firing a shot at all.


RE: Printing isn't the problem
By V-Money on 5/11/2013 3:16:11 PM , Rating: 4
Well, if all of you gun control advocates weren't so asinine about trying to punish legal gun owners this wouldn't even be an issue. Try to stop one avenue of obtaining weapons and another one will arise. This whole project was created to make a mockery of gun control (which it did) and now practically anyone can get one. Also, now that this has been gaining so much media attention I can guarantee that there will be more projects like this in the future.

I think its great though and I am looking forward to seeing what the future holds with this technology (and even more advanced printers). Sure people will die because of this, but you can thank gun control advocates for that. I'm not worried because I'm in a state where you are actually allowed to carry a weapon on you.


Crazyness!
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 3:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
So the DoD or the powers that be have only a slight issue with scientists creating a super swine flu virus which could potentially wipe out Billions but when it comes to a plastic toy gun that is no better than a zip gun that can be made in your garage at 1000th of the price? It gets a banned? say what?




RE: Crazyness!
By Haydon987 on 5/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: Crazyness!
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Its called being informed let me help you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/science/debate-p...

One of many write ups....


RE: Crazyness!
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 4:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
You're confused.

If researchers look into H5N1 to see *if* it can become airborne, and find out what the mechanism is that causes it to do so, then we become more capable of knowing what and how to avoid such things from happening in nature - or perhaps have more insight into what to do if it does. At the very least, maybe be able to recognize that it's in the process of happening.

You're trying to paint a picture of a bunch of mad scientists trying to go all Twelve Monkeys on us. Which is retarded. Research into deadly diseases is highly critical to learn how to deal with them - and ultimately to learn how to defeat them.

I do think it's prudent though that they've kept a tight lid on exactly what the process was that the researchers went through with it though. Because despite the fact that, as noted in the article, you'd have to be insane to try to use the flu as a weapon (it would infect everyone...not just your enemies), there's apparently not a shortage of people on this planet stupid enough to do such things.


RE: Crazyness!
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 4:37:15 PM , Rating: 1
Not talking about weaponizing the flu! the fact is they purposefully and irresponsibly created a super virus; Airborne SARS effectively. Then later published the results of how they did it leaving out some of the detail which really doesn't matter because they brag how easy it was done at the same time proving it was done. Which leads to recently Chinese researchers doing the same type of thing creating super viruses.

Call me paranoid but I don't trust anyone with that kind of virus! However slight there is a chance of something like this getting into the wild there still is a chance a virus like this sure makes Nuclear derived MAD seem appealing.


RE: Crazyness!
By liem107 on 5/11/2013 9:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
They simply did study an hybridation which means they studied how two strains of virus put in contact with each others could recombine.This happened fairly easily which means there is a high probability that such kind of virus will at some point appear in nature.
This is quite important but I just hope they did it in a proper level 4 lab to avoid releasing this new strain to the real world.
This publication is just a warning so that we stand ready when it will happen.


RE: Crazyness!
By Omega215D on 5/11/2013 3:27:12 AM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile the President was okay with Operation Fast and Furious... only to tell Mexico that the US is to blame for the increased violence in that sh*thole later on. Well, if he's blaming regular gun owners for that, the bastard can go f*ck himself.

Ooohh, I disagreed with his policies... it makes me a giant racist to these supposedly "liberal" libtards.


Too Late
By Flunk on 5/10/2013 2:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
This is one of those things that won't and can't, go away. The plans are out on the net and they can't stop them being distributed. Even if they pulled them off the web everywhere people would still distribute the plans by sneakernet.

The technology is out there now, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Making a big deal out of it is just bringing more attention to the fact that they're out there.

If you and I can get the plans (and believe me, we could) the "bad guys" they're worried about probably already have them and are printing them out right now.




RE: Too Late
By x10Unit1 on 5/10/2013 3:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much this. Like pandora's box, once it is opened, you aren't closing it again.


RE: Too Late
By marvdmartian on 5/13/2013 9:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.


only option
By ptmmac on 5/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: only option
By lagomorpha on 5/11/2013 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
Can't stop the signal, Mal


RE: only option
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2013 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine how much easier it will be to get a gun like this on an airplane


Uhh nearly impossible?

This gun would light up like the 4'th of July on a body scanner anyway. Even if you got the bullets and metal parts through the detector. The gun itself would fail the carry on bag check as well as checked baggage.

Have you flown lately? It would be like impossible to get this gigantic plastic gun into an airplane.

quote:
No one but a terrorist or hit man would want one.


Does that kid in the picture look like either? He's a hobbyist! Stop demonizing people for having a hobby that you can't relate to.

quote:
I would expect any 3d printer to come with a circuit that checks for designs such as these before printing them.


/facepalm.

Okay you're a moron.


RE: only option
By ironargonaut on 5/13/2013 7:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Possession of a gun w/o a serial number is a felony in the US with a minimum sentence.


Did someone say...
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Barbara Streisand effect?"




RE: Did someone say...
By lennylim on 5/10/2013 6:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
My thoughts exactly. The whole thing just got immensely more desirable.

If you're an Obama supporter : however, this step is necessary so that evil Republicans will not attack Obama for being soft on terrorism.

If you're an Obama hater : this is all a bunch of ineffectual posturing for publicity purposes and another waste of taxpayer money.


Headline should read:
By lagomorpha on 5/11/2013 6:31:16 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not content to simply wage war on the second amendment, Obama now declares war on the first




Undetectable???
By BiffSarin on 5/10/2013 3:50:44 PM , Rating: 4
First, define undetectable. Because I had one of those new "body wave" scanners pick up the fact that my plane ticket was still in my back pocket. Second, this gun uses a nail for a firing pin and a cartridge made out of lead, copper, brass and/or steel. So do you just tell the TSA agent that you only carry it "cause it's your lucky bullet"? Seriously! It ain't undetectable!




I wonder
By djkrypplephite on 5/10/2013 11:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if anyone paused to consider the irony of banning something called, "The Liberator."

You can't get much more obviously tyrannical that that.




RE: I wonder
By Lord 666 on 5/11/2013 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
DD's other products include "The "Pelosi" and "The Cuomo."


Funny
By superflex on 5/10/2013 4:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
The government and media have no problem supplying us with plans how to make a pressure cooker bomb.
I don't know how many stories I read that linked or showed the article in Inspire, the mag of the sheep fucking jihadists.




By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 2:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
3d printers are neat, but they're mostly useful for larger companies who can afford one plus real industrial machines.If you own both, you can do quick prototyping with the 3D printer and then once you confirm fitment and operation you can make the parts on production machines.

For a hobbyist, a metalworking CNC machine would probably be more practical than a 3D printer. The CNC machines have been around for a while, they're relatively inexpensive, and they make parts out of metal which is stronger and more durable than plastic.

A lathe/mill combo can make just about anything you see.




Far Stretch
By Morter on 5/10/2013 9:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
How far will our government go. ITAR? What a bullshit call. The only reason the politicans are involved is that it is good press, they appear to be doing something usefull.If you spend A little time searching the WWW you will find plans to make far more dangerous goods some of which are illegal, Legislation to ban products has never cured the problem.




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By MelodyRamos49 on 5/12/2013 4:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
until I looked at the bank draft of $7321, I have faith ...that...my cousin was like they say actualy taking home money in their spare time on there computar.. there friend brother has been doing this for only 17 months and a short time ago cleared the loans on their apartment and bourt Porsche 911. read more at, Jump44.comCHECK IT OUT




Streisand Effect
By tayb on 5/10/2013 3:53:06 PM , Rating: 1
Does anyone ever learn? This weapon had been download 100,000 times before the DoD decided they wanted to kill it. The vast majority of people had no idea what this was or weren't interested in it in the slightest. But when the news broke that the DoD had ordered the removal of the blue prints it exploded. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is in the millions.

I was sitting there watching the seeders on TPB go from 100 to 250 to 500 to 1000 to 2000 to 2500. Then another one would pop up and reach that plateau and another and another. My friends who don't even give a shit about guns were downloading and seeding.

How many times does this attempted censorship had to grossly backfire before people understand how this whole thing works. You cannot censor. It doesn't work. Censoring this gun made it exponentially more popular than it would have EVER been.




properly
By dew111 on 5/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: properly
By SPOOFE on 5/13/2013 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"good guys" (AKA bystanders) with guns are not going to be as quick to shoot as the criminals who are prepared to use the weapons they bring.

Is that an inherent property of "bystanders", or is that a result of draconian gun policies that requires every bystander to stop and ask himself "Am I going to be arrested if I try to help?"

Regardless, the evidence is clear: Criminals leave an area or adopt non-confrontational tactics in areas where gun ownership and/or carry are permitted and likely.


ugly
By chromal on 5/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: ugly
By Denigrate on 5/10/2013 2:38:04 PM , Rating: 3
It's quite a bit more difficult than what you portray. Maybe in the future everyone will have a 3D printer capable of the quality required to make a functioning gun at home, but that's not reality today, and not likely to be reality for quite some time.


RE: ugly
By aharris02 on 5/10/2013 5:30:56 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, but why not have the conversation now, before it's too late to be able to figure out what the plan is for this new avenue to obtaining weaponry?


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I have a fhuge problem with allowing any unreliable felon, crazy, or suicidal person to hit 'print' and assemble for themselves a firearm that the law disallows them to have


Why is there so much fuss about a 3d printer that prints out plastic pieces when a hobbyist CNC lathe/mill combo costs less and creates things out of metal? With that you could make a real gun.

Or save yourself $1000 and just buy a pistol off a crackhead.


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: ugly
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't matter if they make it illegal for people to print out guns anyway.

It will still happen. If you're looking to print out an untraceable gun with which to do some crime, are you really going to care that printing the gun in the first place is also a crime?

As for complicated parts - this stuff isn't complicated. In fact, you could greatly simplify the design to essentially a cylinder (barrel), a nail, and a rubber band. It'd still work...for one shot.

Outlawing it will be just as effective as the CAN-SPAM act was at ending spam.


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
We all know outlawing anything won't stop it. The people who is bent on committing crimes will always find a way.

The point is to limit availability and prevent people that has potential to commit crimes. When you limit availability, it also make it easier to trace a trail of evidence during an investigation. It also it easier to flag potential criminals before they act.

Yes you can make a very simple firearm easily like you said. But it won't fire reliably even for one round. It also sounds like the shooter may sustain some damage as well from what you are suggesting. And it will be inaccurate.


RE: ugly
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 3:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Only has to shoot once. At point-blank range.

My point is you're not realistically limiting availability in any way. Pretty much anyone who gets their hands on a 3D printer will be able to fabricate something that will work for firing one shot...and in any case, you'd not have any kind of "trail of evidence" one way or another. How do you get a trail of evidence by having someone print out a gun from a design freely available to all on the internet?


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 1
because it is now only available on the pirate bay, which is a known site for illegal downloads lol. Probably some other sites too but it's not freely distributed anymore.

I understand your POV, it's a wash when someone wants to have it. I think it's better to keep it unavailable for people who don't know about it. Most people don't know about this yet.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:43:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think it's better to keep it unavailable for people who don't know about it. Most people don't know about this yet.


Yeah censorship rocks!

We should also ban all blacksmith information. Swords and knives are sharp and pointy, we can't have people using them.


RE: ugly
By Fleeb on 5/10/2013 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget explosives and nukes.


RE: ugly
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2013 4:22:07 PM , Rating: 5
Don't forget pencils, scissors, water, plastic bags, rope and worst of all, weed whackers. Weed Whackers would be a horrible, painful way to take someone out.

And pencils... they're horrifying. Not only can you bring them on a plane but if you get the right graphite number (not no.2) and sharpen them to a exact point, you can stab with impunity. Oh the horror!

We must ban all these and more! The people might hurt themselves! Rubber rooms for everyone! No more farming, no more working, no more playing. Everyone is sentenced to their homes with tubes inserted into their rectums (so they can't die from fecal contamination) and into their mouths directly to their stomachs (so they can't choke on their food) and catheterized for good measure. They'll be suspended on treadmills and injected with sedatives every night to ensure a perfect eight hours of sleep. Everything will be metered and measured so everyone has an equal opportunity at living a healthy (and boring) life.

Yeah. It is coming. Watch out.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 7:16:47 PM , Rating: 3
For those who think you're exaggerating...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/bloomberg...

If this mindset doesn't scare you I don't know what will.


RE: ugly
By freeagle on 5/11/2013 7:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
A 3D printed plastic gun perhaps?


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 4:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because it is now only available on the pirate bay, which is a known site for illegal downloads lol. Probably some other sites too but it's not freely distributed anymore.


You can still legally download the file. It was only illegal to let people from other countries download it.


RE: ugly
By DigitalFreak on 5/10/2013 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 1
You should be locked up for murdering the English language.


RE: ugly
By eagle470 on 5/10/2013 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 3
Ever heard of making guns out of super soakers or nerf dart guns? They are real, they exist, and most of them are considered undetectable. As long as the barrel is slightly wider than the circumference of the bullet and nothing is obstructing the barrel, you don't even need a metal liner, the only metal component needed is the round of ammunition it uses. Aside from that, plastic guns are nothing new.

as for ease of construction, zip guns are incredibly popular for single targets by low funded users. They are next to impossible to trace, since there's no rifling on the barrel, and supplies can be bought over an extended period of time.

If it were a revolution, you could churn out a bunch of these for civilian use for personal protection, or for use by resistance members behind enemy lines.

But for wide spread use and commonality, $1500 for the printer plus the cost of the plastic cartridges, it's just too expensive. Aside from that, most people I know can't even figure out how to hook up their HP printer, you really think your local crack head will be able to figure this thing out?


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 1
The printer is $1500 now. It'll be <500 later.

I've heard of many ways to make cheap firearms and explosives from household products. All of it is practically untraceable. But the point is, you really gotta go out of your way to do it.

This is much easier. It cost you about $5 of plastic. The printer cost is high but you can print hundreds quickly and easily. Soon millions of households will have these printers and making a weapon is as easy as hitting print and anybody can do it.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The printer is $1500 now.


$1500 will buy you two or three guns downtown. What's your point?

quote:
Soon millions of households will have these printers and making a weapon is as easy as hitting print and anybody can do it.


You're full of crap! 3D printers will NEVER be that widely used in households. They're nearly worthless for the average persons use. And everyone isn't dying to make their own unreliable guns that blow up after a few shots.

Just for once can you use your brain and stop towing the big Government nanny state line?


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$1500 will buy you two or three guns downtown. What's your point

Sure it will, but it will NOT be UNDETECTABLE. It will also be registered if you bought it legal. Your only other route is buying it illegally.

quote:
You're full of crap! 3D printers will NEVER be that widely used in households. They're nearly worthless for the average persons use. And everyone isn't dying to make their own unreliable guns that blow up after a few shots.

Really? you know this? if anything, everything I've read shows 3D printer is the future. People can print everything from cell phone casing to tools. Hospitals can even print synthetic skin.
You only need one shot to commit a crime.

quote:
Just for once can you use your brain and stop towing the big Government nanny state line?

I bash Democrats, Republicans, Governments as well as Corporations. I don't know how you can come up with this conclusion. The only thing we know for sure is you have a serious problem with people who disagree with you. I guess you have a big problem socializing in the real world.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 4:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure it will, but it will NOT be UNDETECTABLE.


Neither are 3D printer sales. Oh I'm sorry, thought you had a point?

You need to make up your mind. In one argument you bring up a mentally unstable person on a rampage. Now you're bringing up the weapons detectability? Since when does a crazy person hell-bent on murder care if the weapon is registered or undetectable?

quote:
People can print everything from cell phone casing to tools. Hospitals can even print synthetic skin.


People can do LOTS of things today to save money. Guess what? They largely don't. They don't change their own oil, they don't fix their own appliances, they don't remodel their own homes, hell they pay people to change light bulbs for them.

Your vision of millions of people 3D printing their brains out at home is a joke. Be realistic you moron. Do we all have computerized CNC machines making stuff for us at home as well?

quote:
You only need one (insert nearly every object on Earth) to commit a crime.


Fixed that for you. I can even kill you by shoving dirt down your throat. A proposition that gets more appealing with every one of your posts.


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure it will, but it will NOT be UNDETECTABLE. It will also be registered if you bought it legal. Your only other route is buying it illegally.


What the hell are you talking about? Why do you post when nearly every piece of information you state is incorrect?

The gun you buy legally will most likely NOT be registered. Most states allow you to buy a gun using a driver's license. The gun doesn't need to be registered, and in fact there are federal laws preventing a federal registration system.


RE: ugly
By bupkus on 5/10/2013 3:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
3D printers will NEVER be that widely used in households. They're nearly worthless for the average persons use.
Clearly, you fail to appreciate the devotion this nation's youth have to the building of all things Lego.


RE: ugly
By half_duplex on 5/10/2013 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 1
I have an idea... for every house that uses a 3D printer, a video surveillance monitor must be stationed inside their home where they keep the printer, allowing our government to make sure they do not make these evil guns.

Problem solved.


RE: ugly
By Breathless on 5/10/2013 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 4
An armed society is a polite society


RE: ugly
By TSS on 5/11/2013 2:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take my nation's tendancy to complain over the US murder rate any day of the week.


RE: ugly
By Kutark on 5/13/2013 10:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
First, i'm assuming you are from the UK, if not, then probably Australia? If so, i'm so sick of that argument. You guys are morally corrupt. What you basically say is that saving 1 person from being murdered is worth having 5-6 more people raped, stabbed, beaten with a lead pipe, etc.

As of the end of 2012 the UK averaged about 2030 violent crimes per 100k people. The us averaged around 390 per 100k people.

Im not at home so i dont have the data at hand for Australia, but it aint much better.

Basically what UK/AUS did was trade a few murders/homicides committed with guns, to allow criminals and rapists to run rampant knowing people have no viable way to defend themselves.


RE: ugly
By BZDTemp on 5/10/2013 4:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think a gun has complicated parts?

Making a refined super accurate and reliable gun is difficult, but something basic is pretty simple. Something like a WWII era sub-machine gun is really a rather crude mechanical device, a revolver even easier and a there is simpler guns than that.

As for undetectable - well a gun without ammo is rather useless but I agree that ships has sailed.

But unless 3D printers is banned then what is to stop anyone from designing and printing their own gun. Not much really - only just like nothing is stopping people getting a some metal tools and making guns the same nothing will stop people printing guns.


RE: ugly
By Asetha on 5/10/2013 4:07:29 PM , Rating: 5
Brass shells are undetectable?

News to me.


RE: ugly
By superflex on 5/10/2013 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 3
I guess the metal nail used for the firing pin is also undetectable in the mind of a uber lib


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 12:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe your mind is too small to grasp that people can commit crimes every where and not just the airport. There's plenty of changes you can make to the outside of the gun to make it look like a toy. Carry a few of them. Even with only 6 shots each, I don't see anyone having problems carrying at least 4.
Maybe you didn't know that they used to make colored pistols. Until too many people thought it was fake or just a toy.


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is still much harder than hitting print and wait. I can't see too many hobbyists be able to make a lot of complicated parts. Also you forgot the important part of UNDETECTABLE.


Do you even read people's posts before you reply? You either have horrible reading comprehension or you're just trolling.

You are entirely wrong. Producing a CNC part is just as easy as printing a plastic part with this 3D printer. All it requires you to do is upload the Gcode and kick off the operation. Also, you can still machine plastic and make undetectable pieces.

Look, this is a tech site. If you can't contribute to the discussion with factually correct information you should probably not post.


RE: ugly
By drycrust3 on 5/10/2013 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't see too many hobbyists be able to make a lot of complicated parts.

As I understand it, there is already a range of what could be considered "complicated part" designs that are available, right now, for download. Thingiverse website has pictures of stuff, which I'm guessing is stuff people have made with 3D printers. The list, besides really basic stuff like rocket fin guides, includes a model aeroplane that flies, a Darlek (on the home page) with a head that turns, some sort of computer printed circuit board, and a turbine.
http://www.thingiverse.com/newest/page:1


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
This is no different than making your own gun, which has been done for hundreds of years. Anyone with the money can buy the necessary equipment to machine a gun up from scratch. Just as anyone with the money can buy a 3D printer.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear, not that Obama and freedom-hating Liberals care. The right to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed. That's an absolute statement, yet there's infringement going on a daily basis.

quote:
an ineligible felon, a crazy, or a suicidal person to hit 'print' and bypass the safeguards of law we all deserve.


That argument can be used to ban or regulate anything. Hello?

Pressure cooker bombs like we saw in Boston are easier to obtain and far more affordable than 3D printed guns.


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not interested in your Marxist Socialist viewpoint on this. I already know what side you fall on, and the logic you're using to back it up is as flawed as usual.

Gun control has never prevented a single crime. It only prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining one. Criminals don't care about laws, which is why they're criminals. Because they break them.

We have laws in abundance. And yet the single largest percentage of our population is in prison compared to any first world developed nation. And many third world ones!


RE: ugly
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 3:30:56 PM , Rating: 3
vs. going to kitchen and grabbing a butcher knife or going to the garage to get a hammer to kill siblings/parents/friends. You make no sense.


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Keyboard warriors don't realize how hard it is to use a melee weapon and fatally harm someone. A range weapon takes away that problem.


Have you ever taken a self defense course or a Concealed Weapons permit?

Because you sound like an idiot or someone who's watched too many action movies.


RE: ugly
By aharris02 on 5/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: ugly
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 4:13:33 PM , Rating: 3
Having law enforcement education and being a veteran i am well versed in whats involved in armed confrontations.

When someone switches on and is ready to kill doesn't matter what they use to kill dead is dead. its one reason you see so many fools on TV that are killed by law enforcement whilst wielding an automobile; which is a deadly weapon as soon as it moves towards a law enforcement official. Don't assume that everyone that post here is as ignorant or naive as you appear to be.


RE: ugly
By half_duplex on 5/10/2013 4:38:09 PM , Rating: 5
This reminds me of the "no drugs, weapons on school premises" signage that was common when I was growing up.

I always pictured bank robbers on their way to a heist, only to return home empty handed when they found that weapons were not permitted on bank premises.

My friend, you were brain washed.


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 4:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are completely outclassed in this conversation but you're unable to see it. Those with knowledge see that you're talking out of your ass.


RE: ugly
By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2013 8:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
You are an idiot,a sword, ax, hatchet, or just an ordinary kitchen knife can easily kill someone in just one slash to the neck, cut the femoral artery, or stab in the heart.


RE: ugly
By Haydon987 on 5/10/2013 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Any coward can pull a trigger. It takes conviction and guts to walk right up to someone with the chance that they may take the weapon from you and hurt/kill you before you get them with a point blank weapon.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It takes conviction and guts to walk right up to someone with the chance that they may take the weapon from you and hurt/kill you before you get them with a point blank weapon.


According to the FBI, a huge majority of all shootings in the US take place at ranges of 3 to 5 feet. In other words melee range.

I know in the movies you see people blasting away with handguns from 20+ yards away, but in real life that's not how it happens.

It takes just as much "conviction" to shoot someone at 3 feet as it does to stab them.


RE: ugly
By 91TTZ on 5/10/2013 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why does the teenager in your fictional world have the ability to buy a $1000+ 3D printer and print a single-shot gun, but they can't make a zip gun for $7?

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


RE: ugly
By M'n'M on 5/13/2013 3:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does the teenager in your fictional world have the ability to buy a $1000+ 3D printer and print a single-shot gun, but they can't make a zip gun for $7?

And this is really why this is much ado over nothing. Anyone who wants to can go to their local Home Depot and get the materials to make a "zip gun". Anyone who wanted to make and sell these to the masses can already do so. We are not seeing masses of murders with such guns and won't when, if, 3D printing ever gets around to making such crappy guns more available.

FWIW the gun was made with ABS and to do so required a better than hobby grade printer, an 8K$ printer. Can someone explain how I can't but a block of ABS (or similar plastic) and use a $200 drill press to make it into a "barrel" ? Use less sophisticated pieces to make a trigger, firing pin and spring ? Ending up the same end result while saving 7.8K$ in the process ?

PS - I do admit this publicity should have some good comedic effect. I'd like to see the faces of the few idiots, who print out this "gun" using PLA on Dad's 3D printer, as they try to explain to the surgeon just how their fingers became detached from their hand.


RE: ugly
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 3
An example of what gun control creates the UK as an example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/810103...

Criminals just switched to knives.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
LMAO the nanny state running wild over there.

The bigger a Government gets, the dumber it's population. I swear it's a proven ratio.

quote:
He says a knife can never be totally safe, but the idea is it can't inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just "grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone".


Right so when someone takes one of these and slits his throat open from ear to ear, his last thought will be "oooooh, I didn't think of that..."

Seriously the idiocy of the UK is amazing.


RE: ugly
By damonlynch on 5/10/2013 4:13:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The bigger a Government gets, the dumber it's population. I swear it's a proven ratio.


It sure sounds like you'd love living in Quetta. Locals have long hand-crafted their own weapons there, and as the British learned back in the day, they sure know how to use them. Pakistan also has very low taxes and by the standards of any industrialized country very very small government. No naughty socialists for you to worry about! You'd also love it because they spend far more on their military than they do on other things that require taxation, like educating children. Mmmmm gun loving paradise for you Mr Reclaimer 77!


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 5:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
I knew when I posted that someone was going to bring up a third world country, as if that's somehow analogous to a smaller limited Government.

There's a difference between a de-centralized Government and anarchy, you know?


RE: ugly
By damonlynch on 5/10/2013 11:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
No one lives in a state of anarchy in Pakistan. It's utterly ludicrous to claim they do. I raised the point of Quetta specifically because the things you say about your love about guns and your virulent distrust of central government are ideas you share with gun lovers there too. Of course there are differences. Your average gun lover in Quetta probably knows far more poetry by heart than you and your buddies here, for instance.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2013 9:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
Using Pakistan was equally ludicrous on your part. Be serious, there's simply no link between their society and Government and ours.

It was a nice troll, everyone loves to rile up the Reclaimer, but you ultimately failed in your objective.


RE: ugly
By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2013 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
A former Green Beret killed a guy in a bar fight with a knife by slashing him inside the leg severing his femoral artery. You bleed out pretty quick


RE: ugly
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems like you're footing is on a morally slippery slope when you intentionally start putting out 'software' (in the form of 3D printer instructions) that can allow anyone-- an ineligible felon, a crazy, or a suicidal person to hit 'print' and bypass the safeguards of law we all deserve.


How many criminals do you know follow the law? Are you that naive to trust your life and liberty to laws? The law really protected those three girls that have been imprisoned by a law abiding criminal in Cleveland for the past 10 years.

"When seconds count the police are minutes away"


RE: ugly
By retrospooty on 5/10/2013 3:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
"How many criminals do you know follow the law?"

That is exactly the point that so many people miss. Why bother trying to outlaw this or any gun, its just stupid. If someone wants to kill someone else, they will find a way. If there were zero guns in the world, there would still be nutjobs putting nails and screws in a pressure cooker with a chem stew and blowing it up. Oh wait that happens anyhow even with guns.


RE: ugly
By damonlynch on 5/10/2013 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why bother trying to outlaw this or any gun, its just stupid. If someone wants to kill someone else, they will find a way.


In reality when countries have made it harder to get guns and banned certain types altogether, a substantial number of lives can be saved. Recently there has been plenty of discussion and analysis of Australia's experience. And for good reason - John Howard, conservative politician, got it right.


RE: ugly
By retrospooty on 5/10/2013 4:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Differences from country to country aren't simply because of availability. There are different socio-economic aspects. The USA has a high murder rate period... Aside from that, It doesn't even matter because its not hard to get guns. Legally or illegally. If you made it hard to get it legally, the illegal side would just grow. If you are planning to commit a crime, you don't use a legally traceable gun, you get one "underground" ... It was mentioned above, criminals DONT CARE about the laws. Getting a gun illegally is a tiny infraction compared to the crime a criminal would commit with it. Making any guns illegal only limits the amount of legal guns. The illegal doesn't change one bit. Its like drugs. Anyone anywhere in the USA that wants pretty much any drug and has some cash can get it. Billions spent on the drug wars, countless life's lost and people in prison and the net effect is absolutely zero. Anyone with a bit of cash can find it in any state. Its everywhere.


RE: ugly
By dew111 on 5/10/2013 5:58:46 PM , Rating: 1
40% of gun purchases occur without a background check. How are we supposed to know how many of those are actually illegal gun sales (it is illegal for felons and a few other classes of people to buy guns under federal law). Plus, straw purchasing (where you buy a bunch of guns, walk out of the store, turn around and sell them to people without a background check) is legal or goes largely unpunished in most states. If you can reduce those two categories, you can make it much harder for criminals to get guns. Will some criminals still get guns? Of course they will. But perfection should not stand in the way of progress.

I would rather we at least TRY to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Not trying is clearly not working.


RE: ugly
By retrospooty on 5/10/2013 6:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
"40% of gun purchases occur without a background check. How are we supposed to know how many of those are actually illegal gun sales"

It doesnt matter... If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can get one. Anything that happens on the legal side is irrelevant to criminals. The guns are out there and people will sell them, just like drugs. It makes no difference, its just political fodder to fight over, like drugs.


RE: ugly
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2013 10:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
40% of gun purchases occur without a background check.


That stat is thrown around a lot. It's a lie. Those were the results of a poll of 250 people, and the rounded up from 37.5 percent. They included people who didn't know if their guns were bought through an FFL because they were gifts from family members. There are 100 million gun owners in the US. Nobody asked me what percentage of my purchases went through an FFL (it's more than 40%, but less than 100%).

quote:
Plus, straw purchasing (where you buy a bunch of guns, walk out of the store, turn around and sell them to people without a background check) is legal or goes largely unpunished in most states.


I have to assume you're talking about Fast and Furious, where the ATF told dealers to continue to sell to obvious straw purchasers rather than doing what they normally do (limit their purchases and notify the ATF), so that the ATF could let those guns flow to Mexico.

quote:
Will some criminals still get guns? Of course they will. But perfection should not stand in the way of progress.


Just so we're clear on your position, do you consider progress to be less guns in the hands of everyone or are you only talking about keeping them from criminals?


RE: ugly
By damonlynch on 5/10/2013 11:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
I note you didn't contest the claim that the death rate from guns has dropped dramatically in Australia since the Howard government restricted availability. And you can't contest it because it's a simple fact. Given criminals in Australia aren't so different from criminals in USA, the Australian example shows your argument is ridiculous. That's the best you've got, really?


RE: ugly
By retrospooty on 5/11/2013 5:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
AUS is not the USA and even if there were no guns at all, you can still put nails and chems in a pressure cooker and kill people. The point is if someone wants to do harm they will. You can't legislate behavior. Beside all of that you can still get a gun illegally if you intend to commit a crime. Banning guns will do nothing.


RE: ugly
By Omega215D on 5/11/2013 3:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile countries like Switzerland have little problems dealing with guns.


RE: ugly
By invidious on 5/10/2013 3:38:25 PM , Rating: 5
The supreme court ruled in 1970 that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and is not limited to militias.

Your goal of keeping printed guns out the hands of felons may be noble, but it is also futile. Felons have a track record of ignoring the law, adding another laws for them to violate is not going to mean a lot to them. If someone is bent on murder or armed robbery what do they care if they do so with an illegal firearm or a legal one?

A felon who prints a plastic pistol is already comitting a crime under existing laws because they aren't allowed pistol permits. Why do we need another law to make it doubly illegal? In reality the second law only restrict use by law abiding citizens, which is pointless. How is a law abiding citizen with a plastic gun dangerous when they could just as legally have a "real" metal gun?

The idea that we can legistlate gun violence away is one of the main reasons why we have so much gun violence in this country. People are completely distracted in useless legal debate when they should educating children on responsible gun use and eliminating the economic and social problems that force people to resort to gun violence.


RE: ugly
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 4:22:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The idea that we can legistlate gun violence away is one of the main reasons why we have so much gun violence in this country. People are completely distracted in useless legal debate when they should educating children on responsible gun use and eliminating the economic and social problems that force people to resort to gun violence.


You nailed it!


RE: ugly
By dew111 on 5/10/2013 5:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The idea that we can legistlate (sic) gun violence away is one of the main reasons why we have so much gun violence in this country.


Tell that to Australia. In the 18 years prior to 1996, they had 30 mass shootings, where mass shooting is defined as four or more people get shot. They enacted strong gun control, including background checks and a complete assault weapons ban (with a mandatory government buyback). Since 1996, they have had zero mass shootings. Their homicide and suicide rates have also dropped. People who hunt and do shooting sports can still buy and use guns legally in Australia, and they can also go to a movie theater, school, mall, place of worship etc. without fear of getting massacred. Many of the people who opposed gun control in 1996 are now glad they passed it, and why wouldn't they be?

But clearly comparing us to Australia is not valid. They are a former British colony settled by gun-toting adventurers who ended up almost completely wiping out the indigenous population. Our cultures couldn't possibly have any similarities /sarcasm.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 5:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Australia doesn't have a Second Amendment guaranteeing it's citizen gun rights. We do.

'nuff said.

Also it appears you're lying. They might not have had as many "mass shootings". But the gun ban did nothing to fix their problems.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

"Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:"


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 12:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know what the NCPA is?

About Us

The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research organization that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control.

Basically an organized version of you. Those words sounds pretty but it's saying anti government everything. Therefore, you can conclude it will be biased against the government for everything.

That article is baseless anyways. I don't see any legitimate statistics done by them. Stating US had dropped in similar level is nitpicking statistics without considering what caused the effects. If they wanted to at least look legitimate , the correct way to approach statistics would be to use at least 4 other samples(countries) who did not pass any gun control laws. There are plenty and I"m confident that it did fit their goal. They picked the US because the numbers fit for H0 so it is not null. Any decent statistician will tell you the same thing.


RE: ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2013 1:16:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That article is baseless anyways.


I notice neither you or the other poster actually backed up the premise that the Australian gun ban had a positive effect. Yet when I post a source with hard data, oh it's "baseless". Just because it doesn't fit your world view.

quote:
Stating US had dropped in similar level is nitpicking statistics without considering what caused the effects.


Nitpicking? Your grasp, or lack, of the English language is amazing. They're using US crime rates as a comparison, to show a downward trend in gun crimes across developed nations. And what better example than the gun-toting backwoods USA?

What caused the effect is irrelevant. The point was the United States saw the same corresponding drop in gun crimes as Australia, yet without a gun ban. Hello?

quote:
Basically an organized version of you.


You know what asshole, I'm not "anti-Government". I'm anti-large Centralized overbearing Federal Government. And so were the men who founded this nation.

You live in Washington DC, you work for the Government (you're welcome by the way, I pay your salary) and on every single issue so far, you've weighed in favor of the Government. Even on things like cable TV mandates!

So please, you calling someone biased is about as hypocritical as one can get.


RE: ugly
By Redback on 5/13/2013 4:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
Of the two bodies referenced in the NCPA article, one doesn't actually exist and the other is a state rather federal body.

Furthermore the article cites a forum post by someone calling themselves "Mark Twain" as the "source" of their "hard data". Seriously?

It's bullshit and only a myopic retard would take the fabrications and distortions it contains as fact without checking their validity.

The real statistics can be found at www.ABS.gov.au.

There have been various statistical studies conducted since Australia's gun laws were enacted and only those sponsored by pro-gun groups (or individuals) have concluded there has been no reduction in the rate of firearm related deaths.

All the reputable studies have concluded there have been very significant reductions in homicide, suicide and gun-related crimes subsequent to the 1999 legislation.

Interestingly, the rate of LEGAL gun ownership has actually increased during this period, but with tight qualification controls and bans on automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons, gun-related crime has reduced.


RE: ugly
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2013 10:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Despite our media's push to make it seem like things are falling apart here in the US, homicides, and even mass shootings, have been steadily on the decline for decades. The truth is that in the last decade very many states have changed their laws to allow citizens to carry guns concealed where they couldn't before, and still violent crime has steadily declined. Critics said the streets would run red with the blood of people fighting over parking spots at the mall, but with the time and costs required to obtain permits to carry concealed, the overwhelming majority of those who do it are squeaky clean, from a criminal background perspective. Heck, even police officers commit crimes at a higher rate than concealed carry permit holders.


RE: ugly
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 12:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's very apparent that crime has been steadily declining.

I think the new gun bans are a knee jerk reaction to people crying about all the recent mass shootings. It was dumb and no statistics will back it up.

I can't say too many things that the government had done recently that would be consider thoughtful. Bloomberg's supersize drink ban sounds like he came up with it while he's high. Sequestration was a disaster overall if you actually witness it here in DC. Neither parties are really accomplishing anything worth mentioning.

We've been seeing a slow but steady recovery of the economy and it seems like these politicians are trying to throw us back into another recession. I'm willing to bet in 3-4 years, it will happen again. Maybe then people will be enraged enough to force these stupid parties to disband and every politician should worry about their city/state. Each politician should speak for the people they represent and not the party they're a part of.


RE: ugly
By darkpuppet on 5/13/2013 3:53:11 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, Arm ownership has always been on the rise in the US, and the decline in crime rates often cited by gun advocates doesn't exactly correlate 1-1 with the increase in arms.

However, there is more direct evidence that Wade vs Roe actually made a larger impact... I have to dig up the articles, (or one could google them), but crime rates appeared to decline exactly 15 yrs after the decision in the majority of states.

A few states had a different timeline, starting about 12 years after the Wade vs Roe decision. Coincidentally, these states legalized abortion 3 years before the decision was made.

When you contrast this with the forced birth policies of Romania during Ceausescu's reign resulted in a sharp increase in unwanted births, and a correlating increase in crime about 15 years after.

So it's interesting that the tenuous associations of gun ownership leading to decreasing crime rates gets top billing over a woman's right to chose.... because socially speaking, unwanted children are way more prone to violence than guns are to peace.

and before you hit the 'flame' button, do a bit more reading, confirm the numbers.

localized crime rates and violence have typically been social issues, not military ones.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki