Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun 712
Daniel_Stuckey writes with this snippet from Motherboard with an update on Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project: "On Friday morning, Forbes's Andy Greenberg published photos of the world's first completely 3D-printed gun. It has a 3D-printed handle, a 3D-printed trigger, a 3D-printed body and a 3D-printed barrel, all made of polymer. It's not completely plastic, though. So as not to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act and guarantee it would get spotted by a metal detector, Wilson and friends embedded a six-ounce hunk of steel inside the gun. They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)
The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
The NRA thinks more guns are the answer. Looks like we'll find out if that's true when when we can put a gun in the hands of everyone, rich or poor.
Re: (Score:3)
You still need ammo, though.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Funny)
Giving people ammo would be too socialist.
We'll make people earn their bullets through their own individual efforts.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Funny)
The NRA are very social guys, they give you bullets for free. Ok, just the front end, but hey...
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the intellectual dishonesty of the NRA bashing should come to complete fruition and the Left is going hate it. I factor about the next election cycle when things swing back to the Right due to the ground swell in the grass roots level of this issue, the Left will wish they had hired me to consult for them. lol
Anyway, we've all pissed around, not came to the table in an intelligent approach to problem solving and this article's issue just might be the forefront of a whole new can of worms that's going to stink to high heaven.
Factor this into the equation. Printable guns; who want this in a very bad way? Hmm..I don't know, but if I was a bad guy, an industrious one, tech savy, educated, smart enough to avoid the system if they wanted to do something evil. Here is a way to produce a lethal weapon, ranged, possible sound suppressed. Completely untraceable and disposable. Ha! It's probably recyclable, so it's not only an effective weapon, but it's green. It has appeal to the environmentally conscience villain. Oh yes, and thanks to the movies, we know that metal detectors don't work on plastic guns or their parts. Hurray!
Yeah, inability to work on comprehensive policies is either hallmark of incompetence or corruption. Either way, we are dealing with the possibility of a whole new animal being released into the wild, and we are fucking around arguing about dumb shit like "background checks". What you need is policy that preserves the integrity and spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and places some highly intelligent safety features into play. You can have your cake and eat it as well if you are smart and can work together.
Here's how I see this kind of animal romping about the countryside. The only hope you will have to contain this is through the tools perhaps, and the plastics used to create this. This will catch the dummies, which leaves the smart guys. They will be able to fabricate this and perhaps come up with their on innovations. Your first bad guys will of course be corporate and government types. This is where the really juicy targets are at. At super high dollar and high level corporate shenanigans, this will make wet work far more elegant, the same with politics. When you are dealing with those resources and those stakes, this will find a nice happy home. On down the food chain it rolls, assassins, vigilantes, crime crews, "militias", you name it.
But the bullets, you say? Seriously?
Factor this, if you can print the gun, you can print the simple reloading tools as well. Why not the shell casings and with some modification, even the bullets themselves. With modern chemistry and completely doped up idiots making meth out of common chemicals, how hard will it be for sober people to create a propellant? The variables on that equation get difficult to lock down as any chemical training will probably yield results.
This is dismaying. Even if we found a bottle on the beach and wished every gun on the planet to be turned into kittens and cheese burgers, we will still have them appear, but now not out of predicable venues, but out of thin air as far as any system is concerned. Let's face it, bad people will have reached their weapon production zenith, while the rest of us flounder around in inept, corrupt politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4)
The rich and connected being the, run away, run away, run away, crowd who always expect other people to do their fighting for them whilst they cheer on the conflict at a safe distance. From poopy pants Nugent to Bush the pretend pilot, to Romney the missionary to France, let's be honest arming them is really rather pointless and just for show, other than shooting house servants if they could get away with it.
Whether the weapon is printed, made in a machine shop or bought, makes no difference, when it is illegal and you get caught with it you will be prosecuted and either fined or imprisoned or both. Making weapons illegal does not make them disappear until people are caught with them, which inevitably happens over time given the nature of the people who have an urge to amass illegal weapons.
Very often what it does mean, is those disturbed individuals often get caught for more petty crimes and further investigation reveals the hoard of weapons which are then destroyed and the person who is a threat to society, isolated from society so as to remove the threat. Believe it or not that does makes a huge difference in threat.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...drastically less gun crimes than the US.
Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.
Honestly it is more complicated than what either you or I just said. There are other issues being ignored. Fact of the matter is, there are more ways people become desperate enough to think violent crime is a good idea in the US than in Europe..save for those nasty bits of it that have far more violent crime than the US does. They are usually ignored too, suprise suprise.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Informative)
...drastically less gun crimes than the US.
Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.
Nope. [virtualshackles.com]
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Informative)
Total firearm-related death rate: 10.2
Homicides: 3.2
Suicides: 6.3
Unintentional: 0.2
Undetermined: 0.1
The graph in the comic shows the US "gun related murders" on a logrithmic scale a little under 4. Based on that, it's clear that his graph is including gun homicides and not gun suicides.
now plot it (Score:3)
Good, you found some data. Why don't you copy it into your favorite spreadsheet and plot gun ownership vs homicide rates across all nations, or across OECD, and you'll see that there is no correlation.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I just went to Wikipedia for five minutes, but it's not really helping you. The "crime in canada" article says:
"The number of murders dropped to 594 in 2007, 12 fewer than the previous year. One-third of the 2007 murders were stabbings and another third were by firearm. In 2007, there were 190 stabbings and 188 shootings. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm murders."
So, really hard to say if "blunt force trauma" is most of the remaining third, but probably is, along with strangling and eye-poking and whatnot. So it's basically one-third each to clubs/hands, knives, and guns.
OK, so how do Americans bump each other off? Googling "by weapon" got me: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html [infoplease.com]
For that same 2007, it says 10,086 by gun, 1796 by cutting and stabbing, 647 by blunt object, 854 by hand, 130 arson, 1016 all other reasons.
Dividing by ten to get those numbers in Canadian proportions, your 1797 stabbings become 180, about our 190 stabbings; your blunt-object+hand becomes about 150, same neck of the woods, anyway.
Only the gun numbers are really proportionally higher. Over FIVE TIMES higher.
Not my area of expertise, or a political topic I care much about, but simple stats are easy to look up. They say that while you may denigrate the source of this statistical analysis as a "cartoon", the information appears to be quite correct and your "the same murder rate just shifts to other weapons" thesis is not supported.
Re: (Score:3)
Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.
Like knives. Which aren't nearly as effective at killing people. So the UK has a fraction of the homicides of the USA.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is, of course, only possible in the United States if the United States Constitution is first amended to nullify the Second Amendment. That only takes the approval of 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
The "amending" step is much harder than the act of making gun ownership illegal (which, itself, would be extremely difficult).
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you ever considered where this "living document" bullshit about the Constitution came from? If they can convince a critical mass of people that it's true, they won't have to amend the Constitution. They'll evolve it in the public mind and ignore they parts they don't like.
LK
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
People who call the constitution "living document" typically seem to be trying to kill it. It is a living document, but it is supposed to be amended through due process.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. There's that amendment about having weapons for the purpose of defending the country
Yes, from enemies both domestic and foreign. That's why The People are supposed to represent The Militia. Every American has the responsibility of defending the nation. Your problem is that you are forgetting the need to defend from domestic enemies.
and there's a lot of people that would never sign up to the military if their life depended on it who are insisting that amendment only has the bit they like.
No, that's not what they're insisting, but since you've already proven yourself a prevaricator by attempting to describe civilians as cowards when it's the military that are too afraid to admit that joining up to bomb brown people for profit makes them evil are
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Ownership of (enough) heroin is also an instant felony. Never mind that heroin has to be smuggled in from overseas, and a junkie requires a continuous supply -- there are lots of junkies around.
The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.
^This. Very much this.
If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.
LK
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, it's because Americans think the best way to defend themselves is to overpower their enemies. You have to have your own gun so you can shoot an intruder or mugger. Europeans prefer to call the police and try to scare the burglar off, rather than getting into a fight.
The result is that criminals come armed and with the intention of murdering you if they feel threatened. Can't just run for it because you don't turn your back on someone who is armed. In Europe they usually flee if discovered.
I don't know how the US can fix this. It's become an arms race. If you don't have a gun you are at the mercy of those who do. Statistically it is better to not threaten the criminal with your own weapon but to either hide or run for it yourself. Even the NRA acknowledges that in their "how to survive a school shooter" videos.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.
The government statistics indicate you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself then protect yourself with your gun. And you are more likely to have your gun taken from you and successfully used against you than to successfully use it to defend yourself.
Yes, I know the standard answer to that, "the government lies" but everyone lies, so nobody h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, but it could equate to "you are saying things that are factually incorrect."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Interesting)
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....
Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Insightful)
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....
Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"
As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Informative)
1. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 Year 1886 - Supports individual right.
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 Year 1939 - Supports individual right. In the absence of evidence since miller was dead and his lawyer a no show the court could not overturn the ruling. Also of interest they used military applicability as a test for 2nd amendment protection meaning ar-15's and ak-47's would be a protected weapon.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Insightful)
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Learn what you're talking about before you opine.
I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Only if the general population becomes as ignorant as you.
Explain something to me. Why would the government need to add an entry into the "Bill of rights" to protect its own right to arm its soldiers? It goes without saying that soldiers would be armed. That's the entire fucking point of having soldiers. Why would they have to enshrine that ability in the "Bill of rights"?
LK
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the moment, in the USA, anybody can get ahold of a gun by tossing a wad of bills across at table at a gun show
Obviously said by someone who has never tried that technique. And probably has never been to a gun show.
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Any holy shit all those guns and not one murder? How does that even make sense? None of them had a background check or a wait! Any one of them could be a murderous asshole and shot up the whole place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to kill you, so you have no right to restrict my ownership of potentially dangerous objects. Trying to restrict my liberties because you presume me to be dangerous without any kind of cause is an infringement on my liberties.
Re: (Score:3)
And owning a gun does not infringe on your right to not be killed anymore then my owning a car infringes on your right to not be run over repeatedly by my car as I laugh.
Most criminal guns were stolen from legal owners. I think there should be a license to owning a gun that requires a government employee going to your home and seeing your gun safe, and you can be fined for having your guns out of your safe and not in your immediate possession (and no, under your pillow is not possession). Other places have similar rules, and lower gun theft rates (And lower gun crime rates).
Re:The answer to the question (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, he has a right not to be killed.
But as the saying goes... Your right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
That is what both of you aren't understanding. It ends at the nose. You don't get to rip my arm off because I MIGHT punch a man. My right to throw a punch ends at the other man's NOSE. When I make contact and NOT BEFORE... I have violated that man's rights and my rights in that matter have been exceeded.
So for example, I can have a gun. And I can shoot that gun. But if the bullets from my gun pass through your body or property then I have violated your rights. I'll even give you the noise pollution argument... so if I'm shooting the gun off at 4 am that is probably a violation of your rights too... assuming I'm doing it for recreational purposes or something.
In any case, my right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
Simply being CAPABLE of throwing a punch does not violate anyone's rights. Simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.
Your desire to be safe does not entitle you to render anyone else powerless unless they've personally demonstrated themselves to be unfit as citizens. Felons and the like can be justifiably disarmed.
So that's one path to disarming america. Classify everyone as felons. Of course, you'll also disqualify them from voting and get a pretty quick war on your hands. But then you're doing it for the LOLz and that should be pretty funny... in a sick and sad sort of way. But it's the same sort of humor we get out of that thinking. Grim and horrible... but once you get the joke you just can't stop laughing.
Re: The answer to the question (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem with that gun they printed. Judging by the round sitting next to it. It fires 22 shorts or cb caps. Not much better than a pellet rifle coming out of a rifle. Be about as good as a pea shooter coming out of a pistol with a inch long barrel.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no, that looks like a 9mm round or a .380 ACP. If it was a .22, then the bullet would take up rather more of the cartridge length and you'd notice the larger rim, .22 being rimfire and all.
Hmmmm ... actually, doing a quick SAAMI specs Google, I'll revise that first guess to that round most likely being a .32 S&W Short. They look pretty close to the more common calibers of my first guess, and that cartridge is only rated for 14500 PSI, which makes it a pretty compelling choice of commonly avail
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The answer to the question (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be more accurate to say this fulfils the dream of putting disposable and untraceable weapons in everyone's hands without any kind of background check or limits.
The metal part is optional or soon will be, meaning you can have a weapon that you can print, use and melt down, that is undetectable by conventional means and which has no serial numbers or other identification. It's far from perfect but look how rapidly the technology is advancing.
Re: (Score:3)
You are looking at this from a very Americo-centric point of view (understandably so, considering this is an American company producing that quintessentially American item, the gun). But this perhaps has far greater implications for countries with tighter gun control, such as my native UK.
Here, there are almost no guns. A few licensed shotguns and whatnot, but practically nothing that would be really useful for violent purposes (such as a concealable handgun or semi-automatic rifles). Contrary to what the N
It's a 3D printed gun shape (Score:2, Informative)
It's a plastic toy that's shaped like a gun, but I don't believe it can be fired. The trigger looks already broken on the picture, imagine how reliable the other parts of the gun are.
Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?
The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.
Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?
The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.
Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?
Re: (Score:2)
you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples
One that prints 5"x5"x5" max.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is more than big enough to make a pistol (7" on the diagonal).
Now, whether that pistol would be safe to shoot, that's another question entirely.
Note, by the by, that you couldn't pay me enough to pull the trigger on one of them, unless it were literally a matter of life or death...for someone I liked...a lot.
Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (Score:5, Funny)
You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I do think they did it with a lot more skill and time than it would take me to push a button on a box I just picked up at Staples. And, with a less strict landlord than mine. If
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape (Score:5, Insightful)
A surprising number of 3d printing projects seem to have been born of the fact that the gutting of domestic blue-collar production means that we currently have a massive glut of geeks who want to make things; but who never had wood shop(and certainly not metal shop, heaven forfend!) in school, and whose fathers pushed paper for a living and weren't in a position to teach them anything about manufacturing...
There are, undoubtedly, applications for which 3d printed materials cannot be matched by any conventional technique(some of the 'sure, let's just print a highly detailed collagen matrix to build a replacement organ' stuff, or some of the single-piece geometry you can get, along with anything that rewards rapid turnaround on very small runs); but there are a lot of 3d printed objects that are essentially really bad plastic versions of something that could have been knocked together with the machine tools of 50 years ago, never mind fancy CNC gear.
(And lest anybody think that I'm criticizing from the outside, I'm actually in a pretty similar boat. My grandfather was a mechanical engineer, did it at work, had a pretty serious setup in his basement. We didn't live at all close to that side of the family, so I only really saw it when doing logistics after the funeral. Dad was mostly a white-collar numbers guy, with a little bit of hobby carpentry that tapered off after he had kids. My own education was strictly college prep, and my only machine-tool time was through a university, plus the online services.)
Re: (Score:2)
An astute analysis and very well-put. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
I find this all very weird because as a physicist, I ended up having to learn machining. Loved it, very useful. But on the other hand, it's very clear (and often complained-about) that there are no young professional machinists out there -- every decent machinist is old and near retirement. While the demand for it is drying up, there's enough that there's some pretty serious risk of having a shortage of skilled machinists in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
It raises an interesting point on the concept of supply and demand. Historically, machinists have been quite low paid, as it was a blue collar profession with a large number of skilled practitioners. I'd be willing to bet that historically the skilled machinists working for your lab were paid less than the physicists. However now machining is not considered a desirable profession, and for low pay will not attract many new trainees.
So as the supply of machinists dries up, so too will their value. You might r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy of mine built an AK47, automatic version out of a frigging shovel and some other metal parts in his poorly tooled metal shop. If you have the plans, you can make things better and faster with less than $100 in metal and some crap tools.
And yes he drilled a barrel and even put in some crappy rifling. A weekend project.
Looks like more of a grenade to me. (Score:2)
The only question is how many shots before it explodes.
Liberator? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)
Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.
Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.
I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liberator? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but to achieve *victory* there must be a transition from asymmetric to symmetric war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the "occupying force" is not local. It can, and will, leave as soon as the cost (in lives or dollars) becomes too great, or when the political landscape no longer favors it. There, the resistance merely has to *exist*, and to function with some semblance of competence.
However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency. The only way to end the war is for one force to establish itself as the sole military force. Either the original army wins, or the revolution grows strong enough to overpower them. Or, alternatively, the guerrilla forces (c'mon, do you really think there will be only one other faction?) manage to dismantle the "occupying force" but none will be able to establish supremacy, leaving a state of anarchy until one eventually consolidates power.
This is also why wars that start as open military conflict rarely persist long as insurgencies. After losing an open war once, few are willing to fight an insurgency that they *know* is going to have to convert, as some point, into another open war.
Is there a children's version? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's always the Hello Kitty AK-47 [tumblr.com].
Re:Is there a children's version? (Score:4, Funny)
This is a perfect example of what goes wrong in many gun discussions and debates. Misinformation. Misinformation. Misinformation.
It's a Hello Kitty AR15.
"My First Rifle" (Score:2, Insightful)
My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!
I don't what to think when a post like this gets modded up funny.
A young boy in Kentucky has accidentally shot his two-year-old sister in the chest, killing her. He was playing with a rifle he got for his birthday. The shooting happened in Burkesville, Kentucky as the boy was playing with the 22-calibre 'youth model' gun when it was not realised that the gun was loaded. The children's uncle, David Mann, described the accident as 'something you can't prepare for'
Five-year-old shoots and kills toddler sister with birthday present rifle --- video [guardian.co.uk] [May 3]
Here's How the Rifle That Just Killed a 2-Year-Old Girl Is Marketed for Kids [motherjones.com]
The Crickett website is down.
Re: (Score:2)
In Other News... (Score:2)
Not very relevant (Score:2)
It's actually quite easy to legally get a gun in many countries. Typically you can get a hunting license or join a shooting club. And yet, the vast majority of people don't bother. In fact, a substantial fraction of those that do get a gun choose to keep them at the club or at some other separate storage, just so they don't have to keep a dangerous weapon at home.
So, there may be people that think this will revolutionize things, in reality it's rather a non-event. People without guns mostly can get them alr
"If undetectable firearms are outlawed... (Score:2)
...only outlaws will have undetectable firearms."
I don't doubt that it's a lethal device (Score:2)
But I'd be very interested to whom. It seems to be the person firing the gun.
Re: (Score:2)
indeed normal self defense rounds producing 30,000 c.u.p. (copper unit of pressure, roughly can say psi). even "weak" rounds like 25 ACP and 32 ACP go 12,000 (early old ones) to 25,000 (modern) and up. I have a very hard time seeing how this thing wouldn't fail.
Looks like a gun but how does it work? (Score:2)
I'd need to see videos of this working before it means anything to me. No mention in the article how you get a firing pin and springs made out of polymer to work.
mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form (Score:2)
mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form in the line of fire
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, the 'smuggling' angle is just to instill fear into citizens to supporting more laws against firearms in this country. Our founderd never stipulated that a 'arm' had to be 'detectable' and in fact, would fully support such a concept if it was possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No... they really can't.
Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got access to propellant it'd often be better to build a Kirk-style blunderbuss out of strong pre-formed tube. It's hard to imagine a situation where you have access to a 3D printer and appropriate plastic, AND happen to have a couple of small-calibre low pressure bullets, but I'm sure there are edge cases where this will do nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lead is cheap and dense, which is very nice indeed(I can't think of anything offhand that comes terribly close on the cost/density graph, certainly not any nonmetals); but at least a few centuries of firearms survived without the luxury of rifling that actually worked.
Smoothbore muskets used cloth or paper wadding to, er, paper over the dubious fit between a round projectile and the barrel, some modern bullets with jackets hard enough to be a risk to the barrel use polymers.
It wasn't until Minie balls that
Re: (Score:2)
besides what the other poster said about internal ballistics, someone with the low density of either material you mention would not penetrate. there is a reason bullets are made of dense material such as lead, bronze or steel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
It will happen no matter what, but they need an excuse and this is a great one. If you notice how our privacy has been eroded, it generally comes in jumps after big some traumatic event hits the news. Kind of the same way a boa constrictor suffocates you, by tightening each time you exhale. Getting people in a lather about printed firearms being smuggled aboard aircraft or into secure areas would be the opportunity to tighten.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it? And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?
Re: (Score:3)
Calm down. Long ago, when "zip guns" were being made out of a stolen car antenna, a rubber band, a clothespin, and a rimfire .22 bullet, and teen gangs started threatening each other with them, nobody banned antennas or clothespins.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Guns are incredibly easy to make, and the plastic gun that comes out of a printer is only going to be good for a few rounds before it breaks. Anybody who actually wants to make a gun would do well just to skip the 3D printer and hop on the internet.
The project is interesting in that someday it might be possible to produce something better. I'm skeptical, though, given the materials involved.
Are they really Morons? (Score:5, Insightful)
... You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.
Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.
...Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.
Should we blame these people for inciting others to action?
I don't think that's right. We should put the blame where it rightly belongs, which is with whatever regulation agency decides to ban things.
Also, should we worry about repercussions before there actually *are* repercussions? Aren't we guessing an extreme consequence here? I mean, do we want to be the "game over, man [youtube.com]" guy from that Aliens movie?
And finally, should we be calling people morons and dictating their actions in a dismissive tone on the subject of gun control? There are reasoned arguments on both sides - the percentage spread between pro and con arguments is not totally convincing one way or another - certainly not at the p<0.05 confidence level we typically use. We may disagree with their position, but can we say without reservation that their position has no merit?
Personally, I'm against dictating the actions of others in the first place. I like to hold people responsible for their actions, and these people have done nothing that harms others. The sophistry "they're enabling others to kill" is just that - an emotional narrative with no basis used to sway an argument. If (and that's a big if) others are enabled by these acts, then the others would be responsible, not these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave..."
Re:weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.
Notice how we didn't ask you about it.
Unlike Europe and Asia, this country was not founded by a conquering king. It was founded on the abuse of authority; we won our freedom because the civilians had guns and formed militias. For a while after that, we kept our freedom because the politicians were afraid that if they abused their authority that the citizenry would not be afraid to use them again. Quotes by people like James Madison sum it up better than I can: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Of course, members of our government don't feel quite as threatened today, or if they do they don't mention it.
We also don't have to look back too far in history to see what tyrannical governments have done to unarmed civilians. Germany and Russia in the last century, of course; but Cuba and North Korea still run roughshod over their civilians. We say to ourselves, "we'd never let that happen here", and we mean it.
When some group says "we have guns because we have the right to hunt, or we need to defend ourselves from crime", they're being disingenuous. We have guns because we want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious. The 3AM knock on the door to haul away a political dissident will not be allowed to become commonplace here, because we don't even track the law abiding citizens that have guns.
Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep. If it my child were killed in a school shooting, I'm sure I'd feel differently.
Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He never said we were unique. He only said that in comparison to Europe and Asia, our country was not founded by a conquering king. You hold up Great Britain as an example of a country that's thrown off tyranny, but I suspect you never quite passed your A-levels in history. Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William I, after all, a guy better known to history as William the Conqueror. So, no, I'm not going t
Re:weird (Score:4, Funny)
What, that it's a billion dollar operation that's mostly about entertainment and gossip?
Re: (Score:2)
They love their freedoms.
Freedom is only one principle used to achieve results.
But life is about results, not principles.
Without principles, life would be dull and predictable, ho hum. The TAO says to take the middle path, if you walk down the center-line you can get hit by traffic in both directions. Pick a side, any side, at least you can see some of what's coming.
Re:If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teen (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm confused... do you think Americans have a love of guns because Smith & Wesson, Remington, Lugar, Glock, etc all advertise heavily on tv, radio, billboards, bus benches, magazines, etc and that said advertising is so effective that (some) people rush into gun stores in order to buy?
With the exception of a few hunting or firearm related channels or magazines... I see far more advertising for beer or cigarettes on an average day than I do for firearms.
For the most part, firearms sales in this country have been pretty healthy for quite some time... they only spike in response to external stimuli (such as our currently slightly diminished push for additional 'gun control')... we see the same thing in plenty of other areas... grocery and home improvement stores tend to see pretty healthy sales though the year... then when there is news of an impending storm... both are cleaned out of supplies that people think they won't be able to get afterwards.
Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.
Personally speaking... I have a 'personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars'
I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.