Ship of Fools: Assassinations R Us - 3D printable plastic gun

Thread: Assassinations R Us - 3D printable plastic gun Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025385

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A functioning, plastic gun has successfully been test fired.
This is insane, IMO. The attitude of the creator is both insane and frightening. And ridiculous.

quote:
"This is about enabling individuals to create their own sovereign space."

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

It seems to me that the motives of this particular creator are completely beside the point.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Some interestingly stupid bits in the Forbes piece:

quote:
On Sunday, New York Senator Charles Schumer echoed Israel’s call for that new legislation to ban 3D-printable guns. “A terrorist, someone who’s mentally ill, a spousal abuser, a felon can essentially open a gun factory in their garage,” Schumer said in a press conference.

Because if you ban them then the felons won't print them, right? That would mean they would be committing an... um... what's the word? Oh yes, felony. Idiot.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

What is a "sovereign Space", and why do I need to pump lead into people to secure it?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Here is a great short story from (I think) the 1950s that anticipated this issue, somewhat.

And... Sarky!!!! Nice to see you!!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It seems to me that the motives of this particular creator are completely beside the point.

I don't think they are. I think they demonstrate who this is likely to appeal to. He might be smart enough to create this, but people with similar sentiments who are less smart will want to get touch to buy/obtain from him.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

You are right orfeo.

The extent of the opening post is disdain for the motives of this man, the first to publicly demonstrate the technique.

I was premature in anticipating an argument from this event that gun control laws needed to be strengthened. My bad.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

All 3D printing is is the home equivalent of the robots which make cars in response to a blueprint. You actually have to have the 'factory' as well a 'design' so the downloadable firearm is't available to all PC users just yet.

However this being the States, its likely there are folks out there who would consider the assembler @ $8000 a throw a bargain for creating an armoury in your front room.

Anywhere else you couldn't sell this to just anyone - but the US?? Who knows. This is the country which markets .22 weapons to infants.....

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Just a suspicion, but if (or heaven forbid, when) someone gets murdered with one of things, I reckon there could be one hell of a lawsuit.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Just a suspicion, but if (or heaven forbid, when) someone gets murdered with one of things, I reckon there could be one hell of a lawsuit.

But when someone gets murdered with a conventional gun there's not a lawsuit against its designer, so why would there be one here?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Just a suspicion, but if (or heaven forbid, when) someone gets murdered with one of things, I reckon there could be one hell of a lawsuit.
But when someone gets murdered with a conventional gun there's not a lawsuit against its designer, so why would there be one here?

If I'm not mistaken, our ever-cowardly Congress passed a law at the behest of the gun lobby exempting gun manufacturers from the normal product liability laws. I have no idea whether this law would cover a clown with an internet connection. But I would not assume that he would share the same exemptions that apply to Smith & Wesson.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

They're still subject to product liability laws - if a firearm malfunctions, for example, they can be sued like the manufacturer of any other product.

It's just that they can't be sued for negligence when their products are used in crimes (see 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I don't see how a product liability case would work with guns in any case. The product functions precisely as intended. It's MEANT to fire a projectile at speeds high enough to cause damage to whatever substance is in its path.

And frankly, the same problems arise in any kind of product liability case for a 3D printer manufacturer. It's doing what it says on the tin. I fail to see any practical way of preventing a printer making things that can become a bit sharp and pointy, never mind preventing it from making a number of bits and pieces that, when assembled afterwards, make a weapon.

About the only way of preventing this would be to ban 3D printers on the basis that they can be used in thoroughly stupid ways. We haven't really managed to ban too many things on that basis. And presumably 3D printers are terribly useful for something - although I'm not sure what, as most of what I've seen about them so far is of the 'wow, isn't that a clever novelty' variety.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
All 3D printing is is the home equivalent of the robots which make cars in response to a blueprint. You actually have to have the 'factory' as well a 'design' so the downloadable firearm is't available to all PC users just yet.

However this being the States, its likely there are folks out there who would consider the assembler @ $8000 a throw a bargain for creating an armoury in your front room.

Although, as you can make a 3D printer using Lego, an almost fully plastic factory making plastic firearms isn't that far away. Get your Lego printer making Lego as well, and Skynet is only a small step away.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

I don't think a Lego printer would actually be able to make decent Lego blocks; the tolerances on those are pretty tight.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

This youtube video seems to be able to mill foam pretty well. To mill plastic, you might need to run the drill faster, but that's a matter of gearing. And, maybe the Lego motors might be a bit underpowered. Increasing tolerance is also just a question of gearing (reducing the amount the drill bit moves for each revolution of the control motor).

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

ISTM that the difference is this: a normal firearms manufacturer can claim that controls were in place to stop their weapons getting into the wrong hands (the controls don't work, but still...) - if you stick this thing up on the internet for anyone to download in the comfort of their own home, I don't see how you could make a similar claim.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see how a product liability case would work with guns in any case. The product functions precisely as intended. It's MEANT to fire a projectile at speeds high enough to cause damage to whatever substance is in its path.

Which is precisely the rationale behind the law tclune bemoans.

Suing Ruger when some jerk shoots someone else makes about as much sense as me suing Chevrolet after a distracted driver hit my father. In both cases, the object in question worked as designed. The human using it was the problem, and you certainly can't blame the manufacturer because people are idiots. (I suppose we could have a "blame God" (the manufacturer of said idiots) thread here, if we wanted, but why?)

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Isn't the flap about printable 3D guns just doing what the inventors of the 3D printer wanted? They are hoping to attract investors, not for guns but lots of other specialized applications.

I think I remember that a single shot 22 caliber pistol was an easily made item popular in the 60's gang warfare.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Making single shot guns is straight forward. A narrow straight tube, a projectile that fits snuggly in the tube, some wadding, an explosive and a firing mechanism. If you have access to gunpowder everything else is available at your local hardware store. The tricky bits are a) getting your projectile to exit the barrel with sufficient force to do something and b) stopping it exploding in your face. Such home-made weapons are only of interest to people unable to get more sophisticated weapons, and in most countries (even the UK) it's easy enough for criminals to get a gun that you won't find a single shot weapon (plastic or otherwise) used in a bank robbery.

Though, I'm sure we can all think of at least one instance where a plastic weapon would be of interest to criminals. I forsee the rapid introduction of new security devices and longer queues to get through airport security.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Isn't the flap about printable 3D guns just doing what the inventors of the 3D printer wanted? They are hoping to attract investors, not for guns but lots of other specialized applications.

I think I remember that a single shot 22 caliber pistol was an easily made item popular in the 60's gang warfare.

The fool referenced in the OP is not a manufacturer of any production device. 3D printers enjoy a solid market without any specific end product.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This youtube video seems to be able to mill foam pretty well. To mill plastic, you might need to run the drill faster, but that's a matter of gearing. And, maybe the Lego motors might be a bit underpowered. Increasing tolerance is also just a question of gearing (reducing the amount the drill bit moves for each revolution of the control motor).

There is also a rigidity issue with Lego constructions, though you could epoxy the pieces together to eliminate some of this.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see how a product liability case would work with guns in any case. The product functions precisely as intended. It's MEANT to fire a projectile at speeds high enough to cause damage to whatever substance is in its path.
Which is precisely the rationale behind the law tclune bemoans.

Suing Ruger when some jerk shoots someone else makes about as much sense as me suing Chevrolet after a distracted driver hit my father. In both cases, the object in question worked as designed. The human using it was the problem, and you certainly can't blame the manufacturer because people are idiots. (I suppose we could have a "blame God" (the manufacturer of said idiots) thread here, if we wanted, but why?)

There are, however, other tactics that can be used in an attempt to guard against idiocy. And manufacturers are sometimes required to employ those measures.

A couple of years ago I drafted a law to do with... I think it's called a 'recovery strap'. You use it to tow one 4WD vehicle out of the mud by connecting it to another.

The strap can kill a person, and has. If you're standing somewhere in between the 2 vehicles and it snaps off, it's potentially lethal.

So, Australian law now mandates that there are warnings on the strap and the packaging that say 'don't stand between the 2 vehicles'. I think there is also some information required about the load that can be borne by the strap, and some other stuff.

It's not the fault of the manufacturers of these straps that people stand in dumb places. There's no failure of the strap involved - my understanding is that the fatal cases have involved the strap being poorly attached or the thing that the strap was attached to breaking, rather than the strap breaking. But the makers of the strap are still required to do something about it.

What was particularly interesting to me at the time is that there is a whole SERIES of options for dealing with potentially dangerous products. I can't remember what they all are, but there's a whole range from advisory to warnings to restricted sale to outright banning.

So yeah, while I think a lawsuit is dumb, that doesn't mean I think that gun manufacturers can just shrug their shoulders and say 'nothing to do with us' either.

For instance, what the hell is anyone doing manufacturing guns that are 'suitable' for kids who are far too young to understand the possible consequences of aiming the gun at a sibling? Children under 10 aren't going to grasp concepts like 'always check whether the gun is loaded'. It's demented that there's a market for such a thing, but it's also completely unethical to set out to fill that market. No gun manufacturer is going to redeem themselves in my eyes by saying 'the kid was an idiot, what can we do about it' because kids fundamentally ARE 'idiots' in the relevant context.

My nephew (11) and niece (6) are completely normal kids developmentally, and they have trouble noticing whether they're going to knock a glass of wine off the dining room table while reaching for the yummy cheese. Who the fuck in their right mind would think they can handle a firearm?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: I went and found 'my' law on recovery straps.

Perhaps guns need to come with a label engraved on the barrel that says 'WARNING: If you point this at someone and press the trigger, there's a good chance you'll kill them. Is that really something you want? Have you considered the consequences?"

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Children under 10 aren't going to grasp concepts like 'always check whether the gun is loaded'. It's demented that there's a market for such a thing, but it's also completely unethical to set out to fill that market.

My kids have done archery several times, as did I when I was their age, and whilst the points used to impale straw targets aren't as lethal as hunting broadheads, you can still kill someone with them. It's rather more obvious when a bow is loaded, but otherwise the rules are pretty similar. They pretty quickly got the idea that you only ever point the weapon downrange, and only ever when there aren't people retrieving arrows etc., but they're not yet at an age when I'd send them off into a field by themselves with a bow and arrows and a straw target. The weapons are going to be controlled by an appropriate adult until it's time to use them, and they are only going to be used under direct supervision.

If we lived in the country, I might well buy them their own rifles - a Crickett or something similar - and they would be used under the same conditions. They would be kept locked up, by me. They would be transported to the range or other shooting site by me, and used only under my direct supervision.

I agree that kids are 'idiots' in this context, which is why they don't have control of the weapon outside tightly-regulated conditions. They are not going to have a rifle, or a bow and arrow, or any other weapon, propped up in the corner of their bedroom. My job as a parent is to keep dangerous things out of their reach until they understand how to behave sensibly and safely around those things, and that applies equally whether those things are weapons, power tools, steak knives, or the nails embedded in blocks of wood that Cnihtlet #2 brings home from preschool.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are, however, other tactics that can be used in an attempt to guard against idiocy. And manufacturers are sometimes required to employ those measures.

<snip>

So yeah, while I think a lawsuit is dumb, that doesn't mean I think that gun manufacturers can just shrug their shoulders and say 'nothing to do with us' either.

There's a middle ground there, of course. If a manufacturer specifically marketed a firearm as "the one you want if you're going to off your spouse", sure- there would be some liability there, I'd say. The lawsuits the U.S. law in question was supposed to prevent are the

quote:
"Bob bought a gun that Steve stole from Alice, who bought it legally, and then Bob gave it to Jim, who shot my brother with it - so I'm suing Smith and Wesson because they marketed that gun knowing it could be stolen"

type of suits which are all too common in the U.S. - the general tactic is to sue anyone who can even remotely be connected to the issue, particularly if you perceive they've got money.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Perhaps guns need to come with a label engraved on the barrel that says 'WARNING: If you point this at someone and press the trigger, there's a good chance you'll kill them. Is that really something you want? Have you considered the consequences?"

Ruger firearms come with something pretty similar stamped into the barrel - it's referred as "the billboard" by a fair number of gun folks, and usually derisively.

Ah, I found one version of it online (I'm not at home, so I can't check a physical copy right now):

quote:
BEFORE USING GUN-READ WARNINGS IN
INSTRUCTION MANUAL AVAILABLE FREE FROM
STURM, RUGER @ CO.,
SOUTHPORT, CONN. U.S.A

Not quite as explicit as yours, but we're all doing what we can. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If we lived in the country, I might well buy them their own rifles - a Crickett or something similar - and they would be used under the same conditions. They would be kept locked up, by me. They would be transported to the range or other shooting site by me, and used only under my direct supervision.

I agree that kids are 'idiots' in this context, which is why they don't have control of the weapon outside tightly-regulated conditions. They are not going to have a rifle, or a bow and arrow, or any other weapon, propped up in the corner of their bedroom. My job as a parent is to keep dangerous things out of their reach until they understand how to behave sensibly and safely around those things, and that applies equally whether those things are weapons, power tools, steak knives, or the nails embedded in blocks of wood that Cnihtlet #2 brings home from preschool.

This. All of it. It boils down to parenting, in the end - teach kids to be safe, and do your part to help them do that. Which means locking up firearms, and bows, etc., when not in use.

I grew up around guns, hunting, and target shooting, as did most of my friends. None of them ever shot their little sister, either - because the adults in our lives did the right thing. I've no problem with laws that require safe storage. I'd prefer it to be common sense - though I realize that ship has probably sailed, unfortunately.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

(Hi Euty [Smile]

)

Heading somewhat back on-topic...

I guess the guy did it because he could. If he hadn't figured out how to create a 3D printable plastic gun then someone else would have.

Yes it's insane. But the creator isn't insane - he's quite tunnel-visioned (not acknowledging the wider issues/uses), but human. We do things because we can, without thinking through all the implications , consequences and possibilities.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If I download the instructions and make this plastic kit, and if it blows up in my face, taking my hand with it, rather than kills someone else, will I be able to sue the person who produced the plans?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If I download the instructions and make this plastic kit, and if it blows up in my face, taking my hand with it, rather than kills someone else, will I be able to sue the person who produced the plans?

Well, you can always sue someone...

More seriously, if you did download such a design for a gun, and loaded it and fired it, then you would be both rather braver than me, and also rather relying on your QC for your plastic extruder. And if your gun failed because your printer didn't control the temperature of the extruded plastic properly, that's probably your fault.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
(Hi Euty )

Heading somewhat back on-topic...

I guess the guy did it because he could. If he hadn't figured out how to create a 3D printable plastic gun then someone else would have.

Yes it's insane. But the creator isn't insane - he's quite tunnel-visioned (not acknowledging the wider issues/uses), but human. We do things because we can, without thinking through all the implications , consequences and possibilities.

ISTM, as a self-described "cryto-anarchist." he has indeed thought through the wider issues.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This youtube video seems to be able to mill foam pretty well. To mill plastic, you might need to run the drill faster, but that's a matter of gearing. And, maybe the Lego motors might be a bit underpowered. Increasing tolerance is also just a question of gearing (reducing the amount the drill bit moves for each revolution of the control motor).

That's a fun video, but note that it took nearly 1.5 hours to cut a very soft piece of foam - ABS plastic is a lot harder. Lego motors can deliver at most a few watts of mechanical power; you can trade torque for speed through gearing, but that won't buy you power (and losses in the gear train can only hurt.) The motor with the maximum torque (NXT) is easily stalled by hand; I'm pretty sure that with a cutting tool it would barely scratch a block of ABS no matter how you geared it. And as lilBuddha suggests, building a Lego frame stiff enough to apply the necessary force would be a challenge.

Still, IANA mechanical engineer (exactly), and if someone can figure out a way to do it, I'd love to see it!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Jbohn, regarding safe storage: yes the ship has probably sailed. Because its one of the things Australia did and you just know that anything Australia did is evil excessive gun control. I mean, over here we CONVICTED a grandfather when his grandson got hold of a gun that wasn't in the required safe storage. Imagine how the NRA would play with that one.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If I download the instructions and make this plastic kit, and if it blows up in my face, taking my hand with it, rather than kills someone else, will I be able to sue the person who produced the plans?

You may have a case, yes, but in the USA having a case is not a prerequisite for suing a person anyway.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This youtube video seems to be able to mill foam pretty well. To mill plastic, you might need to run the drill faster, but that's a matter of gearing. And, maybe the Lego motors might be a bit underpowered. Increasing tolerance is also just a question of gearing (reducing the amount the drill bit moves for each revolution of the control motor).
That's a fun video, but note that it took nearly 1.5 hours to cut a very soft piece of foam - ABS plastic is a lot harder. Lego motors can deliver at most a few watts of mechanical power; you can trade torque for speed through gearing, but that won't buy you power (and losses in the gear train can only hurt.) The motor with the maximum torque (NXT) is easily stalled by hand; I'm pretty sure that with a cutting tool it would barely scratch a block of ABS no matter how you geared it. And as lilBuddha suggests, building a Lego frame stiff enough to apply the necessary force would be a challenge.

Still, IANA mechanical engineer (exactly), and if someone can figure out a way to do it, I'd love to see it!

Yeah, I agree. You'll need more than just the drill bit to be non-Lego. But, it shouldn't be beyond the ability of many people to fix a small hand-held power tool into a Lego structure for the necessary cutting power.

But, if you want to have a means of making a single-shot gun for some purpose and then need to go to the hardware store for a drill to build into Lego you might as well just get the rest of the stuff you can get there to build a gun without bothering with a Lego 3D printer.

Which I think is the main point. The availability of some design to make a plastic gun using a 3D printer changes nothing with regard to the availability of firearms. There are existing plans for the construction of single shot guns, assorted bombs and who knows what using readily available materials and minimal machining already available for anyone to download.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The real problem with current 3D printing technology is that nearly everything that I want that can be made out of the kind of soft plastic resin they use can be bought much more cheaply in shops I pass every day.

And the material things that I woull like to buy that I can't afford to buy already are mostly either not very suitable for soft plastic, or else too big to make in domestic printer, or both. Like new floors, walls, and a roof. Or a washing machine or a cooker. Or maybe a car (not that I can drive) Or a power saw or a telescope or a big shiny computer.

Same goes for guns by the way. Yes, you can make plastic guns. You can make wooden ones as well. There are good reasons why gunsmiths use steel.

And the gun as described is not all plastic. And AFAICT it still needs metal bullets. If you want to avoid x-rays and explosives snifferts and so on you want an all-oplastic gun with no explosives. I suppose a sort of air gun shooting plastic darts (or wood, or anything else) Maybe you could make one that shoots little darts that looks like a ballpoint pen.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

What Alan Cresswell said about 3-D printing.

The truly pitiable thing about all this (to me) is the "maker" culture's belief that 3-D printers will let them live "off the grid" in happy, anarchist villages populated by "sovereign citizens" (who will need 3-D printed weapons to defend their sovereignty, of course). No more capitullizzm, no more gummint.

They seem to have given no thought at all to how they will get the raw materials needed for 3-D printing.

I had the temerity once to raise that question with a member of the "maker" community, and was assured that recycled plastics would provide them with all the materials they needed. Which is of course not true, since under real-world conditions recycled plastic degrades rapidly.

Their weapons would probably explode in their hands before they had a chance to use them. So do we file this one under "thinning the herd"? Give it a Darwin Award?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The real problem with current 3D printing technology is that nearly everything that I want that can be made out of the kind of soft plastic resin they use can be bought much more cheaply in shops I pass every day.

I have a friend with one. He has made little bits of plastic for a pew people to replace odd-shaped parts of household goods that have broken, and he's made a few amusing toys. Not, I think, worth the several hundred dollars it cost him to build the thing, but he mostly likes the printer for sheer geekiness.

Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

The truly pitiable thing about all this (to me) is the "maker" culture's belief that 3-D printers will let them live "off the grid" in happy, anarchist villages populated by "sovereign citizens" (who will need 3-D printed weapons to defend their sovereignty, of course). No more capitullizzm, no more gummint.

Hmm. I wonder if that attitude is a regional or group thing? The maker-types that I know aren't that silly. They can be pretty serious about their hobbies (can't we all?), but they'll happily admit that a lot of them are grownup toys.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Otter:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

The truly pitiable thing about all this (to me) is the "maker" culture's belief that 3-D printers will let them live "off the grid" in happy, anarchist villages populated by "sovereign citizens" (who will need 3-D printed weapons to defend their sovereignty, of course). No more capitullizzm, no more gummint.
Hmm. I wonder if that attitude is a regional or group thing? The maker-types that I know aren't that silly. They can be pretty serious about their hobbies (can't we all?), but they'll happily admit that a lot of them are grownup toys.

I'm thinking mainly of Defcad and Cody Wilson, who came up with the 3-D printed gun idea, I suppose.

[ 08. May 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Grammatica ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
"This is about enabling individuals to create their own sovereign space."

The concept that one's individual sovereignty trumps the welfare of the rest of society is pathological, period, full stop. How to counter-act this poison? I don't know. God have mercy on the society that accepts this as a legitimate point of view.

Lord, may your kingdom come.

[ 08. May 2013, 16:42: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

FYI - It's perfectly legal for a private citizen to manufacture a non-regulated firearm for personal use. 3D printers make this less expensive than say a CNC mill/lathe and much easier than blacksmithing, but the legal home-made process already exists, no license required.

If a person wants a firearm for nefarious purposes and they can't pass a background check at a gun store, why bother with 3D printing? Buy a stolen firearm for $50 behind the local Stop'N'Rob like a normal criminal. Or as I've said all along and was unfortunately proven correct with Boston, $50 and a trip to Home Depot can get someone a whole lot more destruction than a gun ever will.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Doesn't work. A reason acquiring stolen weapons is this easy is the NRA has directly made tracking purchases difficult. The NRA has created situations which make criminal use of firearms easier.
Explosive devices require more knowledge to operate and targeting has more random factors.
The majority of homicides by firearm are not directly replaceable by explosives. Mass killings are anomalies, statistically insignificant.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

OK, so nix the Home Depot trip. It's a derailing direction anyway. How does 3D printing really change anything else? Why not just buy one off the street or steal one?

I'm not saying that's not a problem. It's a huge problem. I'm just saying that I don't see 3D printing really changing the source of firearms for illicit purposes.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
...

If a person wants a firearm for nefarious purposes and they can't pass a background check at a gun store, why bother with 3D printing? Buy a stolen firearm for $50 behind the local Stop'N'Rob like a normal criminal. Or as I've said all along and was unfortunately proven correct with Boston, $50 and a trip to Home Depot can get someone a whole lot more destruction than a gun ever will.

Pedantic point

Aurora 12 killed, dozens injured
Sandy Hook 26 killed,
Norway 69 killed 110 injured (55 seriously)
Boston 3 killed, 170 injured (10 amputees, 'some seriously')*

So it's debatable (if that's your thing). You'd have to play some sick weighting game with injuries.
However the point remains that you can do some pretty vile stuff with stuff that you can buy (although I don't know enough of what was used to power it, to know if it ought to have been available for £50 from Home Depot)

*sources BBC/Wiki

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

In the interests of completeness,
I don't know what was used for 7/7 and where sourced either.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
FYI - It's perfectly legal for a private citizen to manufacture a non-regulated firearm for personal use. 3D printers make this less expensive than say a CNC mill/lathe and much easier than blacksmithing, but the legal home-made process already exists, no license required.

Define 'non-regulated'. As I understand it, these people deliberately modified their gun, by inserting some metal in it, in order to comply with some firearms legislation.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
If a person wants a firearm for nefarious purposes and they can't pass a background check at a gun store, why bother with 3D printing? Buy a stolen firearm for $50 behind the local Stop'N'Rob like a normal criminal.

Exactly. I don't see why people are so up in arms (ha!) over a 3D printed gun given that there are literally millions of conventionally manufactured guns already present in the US. 3D printers are prohibitively expensive, and even if they go the way of other new technology and become a lot cheaper, unless our current situation changes, it'll still be easier and cheaper to buy a regular gun.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

partly because this is only the first, so theres the risk of being like generals saying "what's the purpose of a plane".
Partly I guess because its international, and many of us live where it's hard for criminals to obtain guns (without leaving a trail). Where this intentionally changes that. As welll as being self interested. It's easy to forget what liberties the us has given up (and we.re at risk of, we have far more armed police recently) for security.
Partly I guess we've also subconciencely believed the guy when he's said its a game changer.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

Partly I guess because its international, and many of us live where it's hard for criminals to obtain guns (without leaving a trail).

It's not terribly hard to build something like an AK47 - anyone with a reasonable metalwork shop could do so. It might not be very good, but it would work better than a plastic one. You still need to get ammunition, of course.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[It's not terribly hard to build something like an AK47 - anyone with a reasonable metalwork shop could do so.

No, anyone with reasonable metalwork SKILLS and access to a metalwork shop could do so.

One of the key differences about something like a 3D printer is that this sort of technology is designed to de-skill a task. You just press a few buttons, because someone else has already done the hard work for you.

In fact 2 people, or groups of people, have done the hard work for you. One group have created a machine that can replicate whatever pattern you feed into it. And another group have created, and tested, the particular pattern to produce the replica.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

3 groups of people. The materials which can withstand the pressure have been a large barrier as well. The implications of this are more frightening than a single shot pistol.

The reason I titled the thread as I did was to highlight a major danger posed by plastic weapons. Pointing out that a bullet still is made of metal misses the point. A bullet is a much less significant mass than a gun.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, what major danger? Certainly no danger I can see with current technology.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In the not too distant future 3D printers are as ubiquitous as 2D printers today; cheap, low quality printers are bundled with computers and monitors from major retailers, decent ones are in practically every office, and many people could afford near professional quality printers. The plastic components of a gun could then be produced by anyone for a very small outlay in material - although whether those produced by the bottom end printers would actually be good enough to work is a different question. To assemble those plastic components would take some skill (it's hard enough to assemble a flat-pack wardrobe from IKEA sometimes). Plus, there would still need to be some non-plastic components needed to make the gun work - requiring additional skills and tools to fabricate, or the need to purchase them which provides another point of control against illegal use. If you can't control people getting guns because they just print them, then control the sale of bullets.

Apart from a gimmick, what practical advantage would a plastic gun have over a conventional gun? It's almost certainly going to be less hard wearing, even if you manage to make a plastic gun which can fire multiple bullets (a revolver, or something with a magazine) the components are going to be much less tolerant of the heat generated in firing than a metal gun. It'll probably be lighter, but is that an advantage? If there is an absolute minimum of metal then you might get it past a metal detector at airport security, but probably not past the newer scanners and sensors that are being installed.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

I agree with Alan.

Orfeo, by 'non-regulated' I meant that an individual can't legally manufacture firearms for personal use that meet certain criteria without doing some paperwork. Short barrelled rifles/shotguns and full automatics for example. I'm actually not sure if an individual can legally build a semi-automatic without paperwork. Firearms like bolt-action, revolvers, and muzzle-loaders are all fine as long as they don't have regulated features. Again, nobody but gun hobbyists do this because it's hard and the manufactured ones are cheap and available.

The metal bits in the gun in the OP are a firing pin (could be made from plastic I suppose) and an unnecessary plate that makes it ping metal detectors. This is a legal requirement in the US. It's not functional and doesn't have to be there if the producer doesn't care about laws.

As for making an AK out of pretty much anything, it's true. Here's a guy that made one out of a shovel and $230 in small parts. Orfeo's correct though. It took skill and time to do this. A 3D printer is pretty much point and click after a short learning curve.

The one area that I can see 3D making sense to be used for nefarious purposes is to make a gun that looks nothing like a gun. Why not make a gun that assembles from pieces that look like something else, like a children's toy? No metal to hit detectors, and no shapes to trigger an agent watching a backscatter scan. That can be done today, but a 3D printer does make it easier. Ammo is still a problem, but I don't think it would be too hard to smuggle one or two rounds past a security checkpoint.

[ 09. May 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Fair points,

Was interesting to see MonkeyLizards pictures (very impressive, but was hard to get any idea of the scale, especially on my phone. Would it be feasible in a Kitchen, Garage, Farm workshop, etc..., hour, month, year)

The rest of the post did make it look like Alan's physical objections become a bit reduced. Which was a shame as they were quite convincing.

However point about other controls is good, there are lots of potential solutions and partial solutions. Although probably time for the appropriate people to start planning? (including approx as to how long before one can print bullets)

Anyway Alan asked about advantages and (accidental alliteration aside) I can think of 4, they are each very weak (but I think ought to be considered).

1) [Given this is brought up] it's reduced metallic nature. Not exactly new, our local museum has one for the purpose of getting onto planes.

2) Lack of history,
Here there's no reason you can't print two, one to do the crime, one to be tested.
This isn't really so appropriate to the USA as there is lots of noise. And is weakened further the easier it is to do the appropriate metalwork.
But in countries with licensing you can 'clear' Mr Green by getting him to show the gun you know about. In countries with low use and licensing, you'd pretty much end up with a much limited pool of prime suspects, very quickly.

3) Forensics, I'm not sure about this, but it comes to my mind that printing ought to be a lot more repeatable than milling (especially on cheap equipment). If this is the case then every gun will have the 'same' fingerprint.

4)
Convenience,
Our hypothetical villain currently has to make/purchase his weapons. Then he has to get them to where he plans to do the crime.
If he makes the weapons he needs a moderately sized workshop and somewhere to test them (basically putting him out in the country), if he buys them (again not in the US) he leave a noticeable trail. In either case in the meantime if the police raid he's vulnerable.
With his printer (if they were ubiquitous, I suspect there shouldn't be such a market that it doesn't stand out like a workshop*) he can do much of the testing away (or rely on others), print it out in the middle of a city at close enough to the last minute that even if raided there's only circumstantial evidence.
Again there's ways to create the same effect, already, but...

*I.E. not very much, but at the same time enough to raise questions if no obvious explanation.
Especially one fancy enough to give this functionality. Mind you I am writing this on a computer...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

3) Forensics, I'm not sure about this, but it comes to my mind that printing ought to be a lot more repeatable than milling (especially on cheap equipment). If this is the case then every gun will have the 'same' fingerprint.

The models demonstrated in the current news articles do not have rifling, so not a large fingerprint.
The group making this have also created a printable, lower receiver. (the US regulated component) It can fire multiple rounds without failing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
This is a legal requirement in the US. It's not functional and doesn't have to be there if the producer doesn't care about laws.

And you wonder why we're worried?

This is it in a nutshell. I made the point to you that these particular people had inserted the metal plate, in order to comply with the law. Professional manufacturers insert the plate because they know what will happen if they don't. The authorities will have no trouble finding them and prosecuting them, because they have a nice big HQ somewhere with an address and phone number and everything.

But anyone who 'doesn't care about laws' who is given the means to make their own gun can dispense with the plate, and create a gun that lacks the element designed to make the gun readily detectable in metal detectors.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The group making this have also created a printable, lower receiver. (the US regulated component) It can fire multiple rounds without failing.

Before this gets going too far, the "lower receiver" is a part on an AR-15 style rifle or pistol. It looks like this. The US gov't has required a serial number on every firearm since 1968. That S/N has to go somewhere and it was determined it would be the lower receiver for the AR styles. That means that by law, the empty hollow part in my link is officially the "firearm". It can be 3D printed because it doesn't take much abuse, not because Wilson has made some engineering breakthrough. Some are made commercially today from injection molded polymer so 3D printing isn't be a big step, engineering wise. It will be illegal to make them without proper paperwork in a 3D printer just as it is today to do so with an injection machine or a CNC mill. It can "fire multiple rounds without failing" because it doesn't really do anything that puts stress on it. It holds all the other major parts together. Sort of like the frame on a car, but with less stress.

[ 10. May 2013, 03:35: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The point was the group has no concern for what is legal. They are more than happy to provide the final component which makes the assembly of all the legal components, illegal and less traceable.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

They have all of the proper permits and licenses needed to manufacture regulated parts. I'm not sure how that's "no concern for what is legal."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

They have all the permits as it is the price of the otherwise free advertising the media are giving them.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

Meanwhile this analysis points out how poorly such a gun would work.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0