Friday, 20 July 2018

Americans will soon be able to legally download 3-D printed guns

quote [ Gun-rights activists have reached a settlement with the government that will allow them to post 3-D printable gun plans online starting August 1. ]

What could possibly go wrong?
[SFW] [do it yourSElf] [+7]
[by satanspenis666@2:15amGMT]

Comments

arrowhen said @ 5:00pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Underrated]
I'm probably one of the staunchest anti-gun nuts on the site, but I completely support this. Gun plans aren't guns, they're speech, and banning the free exchange of what is essentially just a detailed description of a gun is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
backSLIDER said @ 6:49pm GMT on 20th Jul
I love that you have the moral fiber to make that distinction. I don't agree with you on the gun thing but I do respect that you have your logic and you are a thinking person.
foobar said @ 3:41pm GMT on 21st Jul
So is child porn and hate speech. That doesn't mean they should be legal.
arrowhen said @ 5:37pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Hate speech is legal as long as it doesn't promote immanent violence and child porn should be legal as long as no actual children are involved.
foobar said[1] @ 8:26am GMT on 22nd Jul
Well, hate speech by definition promotes violence, as does any child porn.
biblebeltdrunk said @ 5:06pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
5th Earth said @ 10:47pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Yep ]
What I wonder is, will the metaphorical well be poisoned with dangerous designs. A badly designed gun is potentially a small grenade.
SnappyNipples said @ 7:17am GMT on 21st Jul
You are playing with fire making these and using these gun prints. Its bad enough to see photos of real guns failing due to a flaw or wrong ammo. You're just asking for it with 3d printed parts.
bbqkink said[1] @ 2:37am GMT on 20th Jul
I wonder how much they will run on the streets? Less than $50 I would guess. Gives a new meaning to saturdaynight special.

I wonder what you hunt with these?
SnappyNipples said[2] @ 1:12pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:4 Informative]
I think I'm the only 3D printer hobbyist here. I can tell you its a slow, painful process to get high tolerance prints to come out. And it takes considerable amount of time in calibration and set up to get these prints to come out perfect. With that said nobody is going to sell such parts at 50 bucks. A spool of good nylon starts at 30 bucks a roll. You want an ABS printed AR lower you may be spending at least 400 bucks to get someone to print this up for you. These high temp, high strength filaments need a printer that can heat up at 330C at the print head and a bed temp of 100C with an enclosure to keep the ambient temp nominal to keep the print from warping off the bed. We're talking about a good grand to get something like that set up and then there's that learning curve to get it going if you are making your printer from a kit form or 3 grand out of the box with a commercial grade printer. As for what is legal to download these STL files have been free online for like 4 years now and they're not even hidden on line. 3D printing makes prototyping cheap but for production runs its more expensive than actually buying a real gun.
bbqkink said @ 2:43pm GMT on 20th Jul
Wll feel better about that now...thanks
biblebeltdrunk said @ 4:09pm GMT on 20th Jul
Wow, 30 bucks a roll is a massive drop from when i tried to get in to it. I might have to look in to getting back in to it again.
SnappyNipples said[1] @ 4:30pm GMT on 20th Jul
This would be for a 750g spool or less and not a full sized kilo. Kilo will run you 60-120 bucks depending on the brand. Since I'm a PLA, ABS, and PETG user I tend to buy bulk from places like Zyltech 10 rolls for like 114 bucks.
biblebeltdrunk said[1] @ 4:55pm GMT on 20th Jul
From what I understand, the university's community printer I looked in to was contractually locked to using a proprietary plastic, making it ~300 per kilo. I don't know if that shows how far the tech has come or how much they got screwed.
SnappyNipples said[2] @ 5:11pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Informative]
Only printers that can use proprietary filaments are those designed to utilized some sort of rfid controller in a filament cartridge. Most people in the bizz now rate those printers as toys for kids. da Vinci printer is an example of such a printer that comes off cheap till you are hit with buying only their filament. The rise of cheap chinese kits and the open sources of Prusa printers and the huge modding community gave those companies the big finger. Companies like the Cube ended up hanging themselves because of the proprietary models they chose for filaments for a tiny 5 inch by 5 inch print bed that went for 1500 bucks and 40 bucks a 780g cart of filament. My biggest printer is the TEVO Tornado and it can print those hot filaments as well as flexible ones on a 300mmX300mmX400MM bed, and it only cost me 337 delivered from GearBest.
dolemite said @ 4:44pm GMT on 22nd Jul
There are also expensive, high-performance prototypers (ex. Stratasys' uPrint line) which use chipped filament cartridges. Definitely not kids' toys and extremely expensive to run. Biblebeltdrunk was probably referring to something like this.

My lab at work has a uPrint which does great prints but has been supplanted by a dual-head Taz 6 which our students can actually afford to use.
backSLIDER said @ 8:53pm GMT on 20th Jul
I've played around with it. I have been totally unsuccessful. I'll stick to metal. And yes, I would totally download a car.
Fish said @ 3:12pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-3 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
HoZay said @ 3:46am GMT on 20th Jul
Should make for some fun YouTube explodey videos.
bbqkink said @ 3:55am GMT on 20th Jul
Well in a way it kinda evens the playing field the shooter is at almost as much risk as the target.
Ch00dSuxer said @ 11:44am GMT on 20th Jul
backSLIDER said[1] @ 6:12am GMT on 20th Jul
Still illegal to sell without an ffl in most states. It is still a gun. You just made it at home. No different then if I machine one in my garage. These actually are harder to make (so far) then a 80% glock. So they will probably never be sold on the streets in this form. Plus all the illegal guns I've personally come across have been super crazy shit. Machine guns and sub machine guns. Because if you are a felon committing a felony you might as well get what you want.
King Of The Hill said @ 4:20am GMT on 25th Jul
Legal to sell in states that allow private transfer. All you do is register a SN# for it with the ATF. Selling without a SN# is of course illegal.
Fish said @ 11:10am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-5 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
backSLIDER said @ 6:52pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-4]
filtered comment under your threshold
Fish said @ 3:35am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-5 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
backSLIDER said @ 9:40am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-3 Informative]
filtered comment under your threshold
Fish said @ 12:54pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-3]
filtered comment under your threshold
Bob Denver said @ 3:26am GMT on 20th Jul
The 2nd Amendment was draughted when the most powerful small arm was the musket... This decision doesn't take fast-improving technology into account. Not that long ago, 3-d printing was a curiosity; now, they're making rocket parts that can withstand very high temperatures and pressures and parts that are used in war aircraft.

I wonder how long it will take until some unknown dark genius (an unknown Browning perhaps with an off political agenda) designs a new and crazily effective assassination weapon.
backSLIDER said @ 6:07am GMT on 20th Jul
Um... we already have those. Do you know what the most dangerous weapon most people ever use is? A car. And killing is already illegal. There are tons of people downloading movies, music and software. Why would making distributing some STL files stop anything illegal?
Taxman said @ 11:20am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Yep ]
It’s about compliance.

Making something illegal does not magically make people stop doing those illegal things. What it adds is a set of risks and consequences to an action or possession. Now, because of those risks, people alter their behavior. That doesn’t mean some people will not simply accept those risks and do the actions anyways (again, laws are not magically binding) however, violators are now extremely visible (compared to the majority compliant public).

Imagine it was made illegal.

So, if it was illegal to download printed weapons, it would be much easier to identify people that actually downloaded the file because only a subset of the populace would be willing to take the risk. Caught with the file? You might as well have child pornography on your computer. Are you willing to have it just sit there? A file that creates a thing that you’ll basically be shot on sight for having. I’ve been told they’re extremely unreliable so defense is out of the question, and even assasinations are going to be 30% fail ratio?

With all of the above, will people still download it? YES! Are the number of criminals within a manageable number for law enforcement to act upon? Also yes.

Now back to reality, it’s not illegal.

I think as soon as someone makes an efficient and safe form of these the issue will be revisited the way bump stocks are being revisited. Thankfully, we’ll only have to wait until someone carries out an assasination to be able to have that conversation, just as god intended. /s
Anonynonymous said @ 1:15pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Underrated]
The same law that enables monitoring who downloaded weapons files can also lead to the monitoring of other things on the internet, I don't think this is the road you want to go down.

And the fact is, a single shot smooth bore zip gun (which's pretty much all 3D printed guns are) is easy enough for anyone with access to basic machinery in their garage and has taken shop class in high school to make. You don't need a 3D printer for that. So the law you're proposing won't do anything. Unless you're also planning to ban shop lessons, machinery hobby sites, metal pipes, etc etc.
Taxman said @ 4:05pm GMT on 20th Jul
Things are being monitored on the web already, especillay the dark web.

I am not proposing a law, just giving my two cents on the post above.

I don’t think it’s smart to give weapon plans to the general public in addition to a machine that can do the work for them. Thankfully, as mentioned elsewhere in this post, the cost to make a reasonable one is the cost (if not more) of a normal weapon. Not against those either even if others scream that I am.

The idea is not to remove the ability of civilians to create items that can move projectiles very fast. That’s not going to happen. The intention is to keep the majority of the populace safe, while maximizing the freedom of commerce, knowledge, and materials available to the public without endangering them. Compromises will need to be made here.

You may be able to kill someone with these alternative firearms, but you will not be able to hold a position against the most basic law enforcement. The MAJORITY of kids can’t get access to machine shops, or classes in school, or the will/ability to make a zip gun properly. Of those that do, the number is low enough to monitor for and hopefully prevent a tragedy. We will fail. We will stand up and try again, maybe with new laws and regulations this time.

The idea is to minimize harm, not eradicate every possible freedom so that no one gets hurt ever ever ever.
backSLIDER said @ 6:46pm GMT on 20th Jul
I think you and I have a different perception of the harm of having access to firearms. Do you lock your car keys away from your children? Do you keep knives on your counter? I think the main source of our disparity in view is that I use these things and you don't. If someone purposed that we need to ban calculators and had some halfway decent arguments for it I could see people voting for that because they don't use them. If it saves one life we need to ban a lot of things. Cars, knives, pools, anything with a cord, ect.
Taxman said[2] @ 8:06pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
The disparity we have is you seem to think because people want to regulate an item whose SOLE PURPOSE is to maim/kill that the reasonable jump from that argument is ANYTHING that could otherwise harm or possibly kill should also be banned under that argument. That logic is faulty.

People are not trying to restrict weaponry because death is a possibility. They want to restrict it because that is what it is MEANT for. A car CAN kill, but it is meant to get you from point A to B. A butter knife (to the eye) CAN KILL, but it is meant to spread butter. A garden hose CAN be wrapped around your neck, but that is not its intentional use.

For the same reason you cannot posses a nuclear bomb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic weapon (don’t nit pick the ways around that) is because when it’s doing what it is supposed to do, people are dying. Some people want to have the discussion of lowering the bar a little, because the mass-shooting situation is allowing otherwise untrained individuals to cause significant mortal wounds faster and more efficiently than they could using an improvised weapon.

Could they use a car, or a butter knife, or a garden hose to cause the same damage (albeit slower)? Sure! However, banning those items would come with a societal cost. No cars, butter knives, or garden hoses would be tougher to live without.

To some people, lowering the weaponry available to the public comes with no societal cost because those people (civilians) were not participating in the weapons intended use anyways. To them, there would be less death, and all they’d have to give up is something they never intended to use anyways.

It’s not crazy, it’s just a different perspective. Try to understand it without expanding on what you think it leads to.
norok said @ 8:31pm GMT on 20th Jul
If what you say is true, that guns are only meant for killing, then you should propose a better way to get mistletoe down from a tree for Christmas.
Taxman said @ 12:47am GMT on 21st Jul
Counsel would like to know what dress you ultimately pick. ;-)

backSLIDER said @ 8:51pm GMT on 20th Jul
I disagree with the sole purpose being to maim and kill people. I did noticed you didn't say people. My ar15 was not built to kill people. It is intended to kill wild hogs. I understand that people think that we are beyond needing these tools. But there is the need. I think there is societal costs of having a disarmed public. I think there is historical evidence that disarming the public lends itself to authoritarian governments. I don't think you are crazy. I do understand why people want to infringe on rights for the sake of feeling safer. Especially a right they don't use. I just think differently. I believe in fostering diversity. I don't think everyone should be required to own a gun. I don't believe you should be force to deal with guns. Just like I don't believe I should be forced into a gay marriage but do believe it should be legal. And I feel like my rights are being threatened and I've been effected by these laws for years. I'm not expanding on what I think it leads to when I already can't buy the pistol I want because of these laws. Of course I also do think we need to think about were laws lead to. The reason I was irate at citizens united, the patriot act, anti net neutrality laws and anti abortion laws was because of what they do to the country in the long run. I don't care about getting an abortion in Texas but I do think it should be possible.
C18H27NO3 said @ 9:17pm GMT on 20th Jul
My ar15 was not built to kill people. It is intended to kill wild hogs. Are you fucking serious? The AR 15 was based on military weaponry intended to kill humans. If you want to kill wild hogs, are there no other viable methods than a barrage of gunfire? Lazy perhaps? But that's besides the point.

Do you think owning an ar15 will protect you against the tyranny of government? Just askin'

I don't have an issue with guns. I have an issue with the right defending the second amendment like it were 1790. You want a gun? Fine. Regulate it like we do chemicals, vehicles, etc. The second amendment is not a commandment from god. Although many gun nuts think it's a god given right. If that's the case, then it's my god given right to have access to anthrax.

backSLIDER said @ 10:04pm GMT on 20th Jul
You seem to have no idea how shooting actually works. The Ar15 is a very modular design. My ar15 has a 6.5 Grendel Upper and a 6-25x scope. The only milspec (Specs for building for the military) parts are a gas tube, the upper reciver (part everything bolts to) and the buffer tube. Every other part might bolt on and work with an M4 but they are not military parts.

I think that enough people owning ar15s can protect us against tyranny. Look at some of the stand offs that have happened.
http://www.wionews.com/photos/more-gun-dealers-than-grocery-stores-in-the-us-482#photo-55932
Setting aside to politics of why the people were doing whatever and why the government wanted to stop them look at Ruby Ridge and the Bundy Ranch standoff. They put up a lot of resistance. They didn't "WIN" but the idea that the Government would just wipe out gun owners isn't simple math.

We have treaties concerning anthrax, other biological weapons and Nukes and other crazy weapons. Can you make anthrax? If so then I would say you have a God given right to make it. I don't mean you should be legally allowed to make or use it. But the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights. It puts limits on what the Government can take away. It is a paper saying these are the freedoms.
I understand that you think my AR15 is a killing machine of death. But consider that conflict is part of life. If you take the wolfs out of Yosemite the ecosystem has problems. I'm not saying that I need to kill for us to have a healthy society. As for how we regulate guns I am willing to debate the best way to do that. I don't think we should hand out full auto machine guns to everyone. I want to inform everyone so we can stop making stupid laws like banning normal size magazines.
C18H27NO3 said @ 9:26pm GMT on 21st Jul
I know how shooting works. My father owned pistols, rifles, revolvers. . .

Waco, the bundy ranch and ruby ridge was between federal agents and local law enforcement. No military. If there were some kind of military coup, all three of those places would have been annihilated in the first 12 hours.

If the bill of rights is what the government cannot take away, then why can't I own RPG's? How about a fully loaded tank? I think you should write your congressman and complain you can't buy an F16 with sidewinders, mavericks, and GBU-31 and GBU-38 JDAM's and fly it around your back yard.
backSLIDER said[1] @ 4:26am GMT on 22nd Jul
A military coup isn't what you asked. You asked about protecting our government from becoming tyrannical. I actually believe that if the police can have it then all civilians should be able to have it. Police are not military. And war is different. There are weapons I think the military might keep for war but even that I'm a bit dubious about.
Taxman said @ 10:11pm GMT on 20th Jul
I think you and I have done this dance before.

You use your AR-15 to shoot boar. A single shot break-action rifle would perform the same function albeit at less convienance to you. Furthermore, it would be much easier to interrupt you if you tried to shoot up a school. You’re inconvienanced, still armed, and have lost several minutes of killing power in a mass shooting. Compromise does not have to end in disarmament.

You used the word ‘disarmed public’. Full stop. Nowhere did I say the public should be disarmed completely. I suggested that “the other side” wants it reduced. They want a mass killer to be inconvienaced by having to reload. If I had to be on the scene, I would like them to have this inconvenience as well.

This “authoritarian government” “we need to be armed” crap needs to go. You were born here. This country existed before you and will exist after you. You do not own it. It is not yours to take by force just because you think it’s gone down the wrong path. You are a citizen. That comes with responsibilities and benefits. If you do not feel these benefits are worth the responsibilities INCLUDING slightly disarming if society votes to do so, you are free to leave. You do not have the “right” to violently revolt against peaceful legislation.
backSLIDER said[1] @ 10:22pm GMT on 20th Jul
We are talking about a break action pistol that can be 3d printed... that is what you think should be regulated. Or did I get that wrong?
edit:
I think we have the start of an authoritarian government. And at least here in California there is talk about banning all guns. And I could go through the history of moving the legal line to ban anything new. But I don't think that is what you want to argue about so lets leave that.
Taxman said @ 10:51pm GMT on 20th Jul
Sorry, I said move your semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) down to a break-action rifle. You can still hunt, but the rifle calibers can get through our vests. Inconvienance for you, but you get your boar hunting rifle, and mass-shooting locations become safer.

For the print guns, I’m against them in the sense that amateurs are making dangerous weapons without really knowing what they’re doing. The court has ruled, print guns for everyone. Whatever. They’re more likely to kill themselves at this point and time. Once they get cheap and effective? Let’s take a look at them again and possibly ban the plans then. I’m not a 3D printer expert like SnappyNipples, but I’m betting the government could start restricting the types of spools you can get ahold of to build weapons that could handle the stress of multiple firings.

As for the authoritarian government we’re “getting”, let me buy you a beer sometime. Remember there’s a whole mess of stuff going on behind the stage. :-)

As for California, maybe check out some other states. Remember, California is made up of people other than yourself. If the majority of them are fine with the massive boar problem they’re about to have if they take away your AR-15, well, that’s their choice. Accept it.
backSLIDER said @ 11:26pm GMT on 20th Jul
I'm not going to just accept it. I'm going to keep voting how I vote and telling others my point of view. One of the main midterm debates in California is over gun control. There has been 4-7 new gun laws every year in California for the last 4 years. Part of this is the side effect of the turn out in reaction to Trump. These laws have meant that friends of mine have been unjustly arrested and their rifles taken from them. I have had to modify and make my rifle less safe. And I'm sure has made a ton of people commit felonies unwittingly.
"You can still hunt, but the rifle calibers can get through our vests." I think you meant "can't get through our vests" and that has nothing to do with single shot or automatic. Do you believe that the police should have over whelming power over other civilians? Because cops commit more crime then CCW owners.
Taxman said @ 12:38am GMT on 21st Jul
Vote how you’re going to vote, but if you feel like it’s tyranny; adapt, move, or get rid of the guns. My next door neighbors are really old and don’t have guns. You can survive (in case you were worried).

And when Obama was elected there was a surge in gun purchases. Skittish humans gonna be skittish.

It doesn’t sound like injustice, it sounds like unfortunate ignorance on your friends part.

Nah a 5.56 round will go through the Kevlar (generally) unless it has the ceramic plates.

I don’t think officers are above the law, no. I don’t want to speak for locals just like I don’t want locals speaking for the feds. Different type of enforcement, different types of problems, all difficult. People are complicated and officers are people and the civilians they deal with are people.

CC owners commit crimes at the same rate as everyone else, their permit doesn’t make them better or worse.
backSLIDER said @ 12:49am GMT on 21st Jul
I think I've done a poor job of convaying that I don't think of gun laws as the tyranny. More of the regulatory capture and money in politics.
Fish said @ 2:42pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
Taxman said @ 4:37pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
Fish said @ 3:27am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
Taxman said @ 11:25am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
Fish said @ 12:55pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
backSLIDER said @ 9:02pm GMT on 20th Jul
As a rebuttal to the 2nd amendment was written for muskets:
1. Citizens had rifled muskets that were a leap over the ones the Authorities were using. Citizens owned the war ships.
2. We don't have the same problem with the 1st amendment. Of course it extends to blogs and internet posts. Private companies can stop you from using them but if you want to put video of anything on your own server and as long as you aren't breaking some law you can call Don Cheeto whatever you want.
norok said @ 9:18pm GMT on 20th Jul
1st Ammendment applying to blogs and internet. Wow, that's actually a great and unique argument that can't believe I've never heard before. +1
backSLIDER said @ 9:33pm GMT on 20th Jul
I personally find the hinging the pro 2a argument on a historical document incredibly flimsy. Some of those founding fathers also thought slavery was ok and other things. We should rationally be able to figure out the logic of both sides arguments without it. So do you have any problem with applying amendments to modern life or just the 2nd?
norok said @ 10:41am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Yep ]
I am also averse to using the "Founders intended thus..." or "because Constitution" arguments. It's just like arguing from what the Bible or the Koran says. It is a tautological fallacy.

That being said; the intent of the items in the constitution can be verified by their historical basis which was true then as it is true now. Freedom of the people and journalists to speak truth to power was heavily repressed by regimes of history. The 1st is just as important now to grant that freedom as it is today. An armed citizenry was prohibited and oppressed by professional warrior castes in history. Then disarmament was a prelude to atrocities in the 20th century to reinforce the value of the 2nd. There have been many examples in the world following the founding of America and it's stated values that have reaffirmed their value to achieving the most just society.

Some of the important interpretations in the modern technological era are coming up such as 'does the 4th protect digital files?' Clearly they are not literally "papers" but they are "effects." That's why the "they only had muskets" is an argumental failure when you evaluate other amendments in the modern day.
backSLIDER said @ 3:49pm GMT on 21st Jul
I wish I could mod +1 said better then I can.
Menchi said @ 11:38pm GMT on 20th Jul
2nd Amendment was also written for a country that didn't have a standing army. "Well-regulated militia", and all that.
backSLIDER said @ 11:43pm GMT on 20th Jul
And from letters written by the founding fathers we know that the wording was meant to cover both. But like I said in other comments the bill of rights isn't some infallible holy document. We should be able argue about these rights with reference to what a hand full of guys thought at the exact time and place.
Fish said @ 4:02am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-5 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
Jack Blue said @ 9:06am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-2 Good]
filtered comment under your threshold
cb361 said @ 10:45am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
Fish said @ 2:43pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-5 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
cb361 said @ 4:19pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-4]
filtered comment under your threshold
backSLIDER said @ 9:19pm GMT on 20th Jul
Oh, and because this has become a bit of a 2A debate; I extend my invitation to go to a gun range and learn about them with me. I'm in Santa Barbara, CA.
dolemite said @ 2:19am GMT on 22nd Jul
I view the increased prevalence of 3D-printed guns as a great breakthrough for mainstream society. It will be much easier to distinguish the most ardent gun nuts by their mutilated flipper-hands.
Fish said @ 3:13pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-3 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
HoZay
lilmookieesquire
XregnaR