Forgot your password?
United States Build Politics Technology

Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun 712

Posted by timothy
from the but-how-can-we-infringe-the-people's-right-now? dept.
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.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun

Comments Filter:
  • by Hentes (2461350) on Friday May 03, 2013 @08:07PM (#43625799)

    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.

  • by He Who Has No Name (768306) on Friday May 03, 2013 @08:53PM (#43626027)

    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.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Friday May 03, 2013 @10:07PM (#43626473) Homepage

    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.

  • by guises (2423402) on Friday May 03, 2013 @10:34PM (#43626635)

    ...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

    Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

    Nope. []

  • by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Friday May 03, 2013 @10:54PM (#43626725) Homepage
    Guns can be had for cheap so that really isn't a barrier. On the low end this printed gun probably costs more than a real gun that actually fires a round with some power behind it, has some accuracy, and has a really good chance of NOT blowing up in your face. I have seen rifles in good working order for about $90 (Mosin-Nagent M91/30s or M44s) and handguns for about $120 (Nagent revolvers) from reputable shops. Granted these are not brand new but good condition WWII era Soviet military surplus. If you looked hard you could probably get those cheaper in a shootable but beat up condition but I haven't seen any.
  • by eheldreth (751767) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @12:05AM (#43627033) Homepage
    f you had ever actually read the case law instead of quoting some talking point you would know the following. Since the first case to touch on the subject in 1886 the Supreme Court has never questioned the individual right. But please carry on.

    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."'
  • by brit74 (831798) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @01:33AM (#43627325)
    According to this page ( [] ), the gun-related deaths in the US are:

    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.
  • by AK Marc (707885) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @02:16AM (#43627449)
    I've bought handguns at a gun show with no wait and no background check. When I sold one of them, I advertised it as "no wait, no checks" and someone posed as a buyer just to say I wasn't supposed to say that, even though I'm not even allowed, as a non-dealer, to conduct a check. My most recent gun show was at the Dallas Convention Center, though I read they hadn't had once since 2002, which is about when I left TX (and the gun show I went to was a few years before that), though I did also see a reference to a gun show there in 2012, but no idea if it happened. Walk in with a wad of cash and two guns, and walk out with less cash and 4 guns. Nobody looks twice at you if you flash a gun before asking about theirs.
  • by Cyberax (705495) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @02:46AM (#43627535)
    Actually, very familiar with it. No revolution was won with the help of gun nuts with handguns against a well trained military force. None.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 04, 2013 @04:09AM (#43627741)

    Actually UK "gun crime" went up. But that doesn't tell the real story. The "gun crime" being detected after the last few changes is mostly possession. So you get the situation where pro-gun analysts in the US say "UK gun control didn't work" and their basis for comparison is "Sure, less British people are getting shot, but there are more being arrested for having guns, so it's a wash right?" which I guess makes sense as long as you have zero personal awareness of your mortality and so can't see any difference between people getting killed versus getting arrested.

    Suppressing ownership also means suppressing opportunity. Opportunity for accidents, opportunity for suicides (which is really important, almost all suicide is opportunity triggered, that's why you can put barriers on Bridge A and the jumpers don't just walk over to Bridge B a few blocks away, they aren't thinking straight because if they were they wouldn't be trying to kill themselves) and opportunity for unplanned crimes. Organised criminals can still buy a gun (on the black market, at a hefty premium), but most criminals aren't organised. They commit crimes of opportunity. Need money, see a woman flashing a lot of cash. Got a gun in my back pocket. Follow her, produce gun, "Give me your cash", shit she's struggling. Bang! Whoops. Now I'm a murderer instead of a thief.

  • Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)

    by Transfinite (1684592) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @06:58AM (#43628141)
    Of course only an American would think that they are unique in overthrowing tyranny. Whilst it is true that America was founded as a direct result of this you ARE NOT unique and special. For example we here in Britain; The English Civil War, wich actually resulted in the execution of our king in an attempt to curtail tyranny. Perhaps you forgot about that one. We also find some sections of the American populace self centered, selfish. Perhaps reason you have so many troubles is this idea of Libertarianism, essentially the idea of, "my rights first, fuck everybody else's rights". I honestly think your founding fathers is they could see what you have become as a nation would disown you. This idea that an unarmed populace couldn't fight a tyrannical government is pretty weak to be honest. For every example that you give I can give a counter. For example The Spanish Civil War. Unarmed civilians very quickly organised into armed "militia". So your populace is having to endure slaughter, innocent kids etc... Because you as a nation seem to have this paranoid belief that the jack boots are going to kick your doors down at "3AM" and arming yourselves to the teeth with little of no regulation ("My rights, me, me, me") is the answer. It obviously isn't working. Time to evolve and change?
  • by rbrander (73222) on Saturday May 04, 2013 @10:38AM (#43629053) Homepage

    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: []

    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.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.