Thread: Forget gun shows -- just buy a printer. 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=025646
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Successful test of 3-D Printed Firearm
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Seems like this puts the nail in the coffin of any thought of effective gun control.

3D printing of RPGs, anyone?

I'm back to add: What's this doing in Hell?

[ 06. May 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I started a thread in Purg, but it belongs equally here, ISTM.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Why does it belong equally here?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why does it belong equally here?
Because (I'm not sure about the specific guy in question), the motivation of these guys pretty explicitly translates to ensuring that when the 'good guys' need to imitate the Boston guys they can.
A position most of us don't like, and it becoming more reality* is a bit depressing.

And a predictable side effect of this otherwise great tech, that one wishes thought and sensible motivations would assist in making ill use difficult.

*ok in it's current form this would really only be useful for: convenient disposable forensic-reduced execution weapons, and excitement over how amazing tech is (if mythbusters had done it, the complaint would be different). But that's it's current form...
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I don't think so. Anyone can get the components to make a bomb or has them already, just requires assembly, with instructions freely available. What's remarkable is that most of us don't do these things.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't think so. Anyone can get the components to make a bomb or has them already, just requires assembly, with instructions freely available. What's remarkable is that most of us don't do these things.
Yes, but I' be disappointed/concerned if (as) someone was distributing convenient bomb designs to guard our sovereign space.

Historical/Scientific information would be different, and it might illustrate what not to do. (although some prudence would make sense).
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I haven't heard anyone discuss zip guns for years, but of course wikipedia has info. They can shoot bullets or shotgun shells. Without saying too much, I'll just say "boy scout" and the part of the promise that says "wise in the use of their resources" and consider that what was once a project toward a badge, well, not so much presently.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Pretty damn mellow, anti-gunners. Where's the froth? The rending of garments?

At least try.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why does it belong equally here?
For this line from the creator of the weapon.

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

 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'd to like to take my sovereign space and insert it into his sovereign space until he screams.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well, people who complain about the concept of the nation state may live to see their wishes fulfilled.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
it's just maddening that in the wake of failed gun control legislatiion we have this technology -- or, at least the plans for it -- about to go online for free downloading. Crazy. I wonder, if the only thing that stops a bad guy with a 3-D printer is a good guy with a 3-D printer.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't think so. Anyone can get the components to make a bomb or has them already, just requires assembly, with instructions freely available. What's remarkable is that most of us don't do these things.
Yes, but I' be disappointed/concerned if (as) someone was distributing convenient bomb designs to guard our sovereign space.

Historical/Scientific information would be different, and it might illustrate what not to do. (although some prudence would make sense).
Try here for pretty much all you need to know. While the intent at Wikipedia is (presumably) not to "guard our sovereign space", the basics are all there. As they are in any public library you like, generally.

No_prophet makes a great point here - it's not that no one knows how to do it, it's that most folks don't, for a variety of reasons.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why does it belong equally here?
Jeez Loueez! The class of people they let post on the Ship these days!! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I blame the Admins. Bunch of slackers. This would never have happened back when Laura and Scot were running the show.
 
Posted by JB (# 1776) on :
 
Anarchist's Cookbook has been around for years. It has inspired co[ies and web connunities. But note the author's comments.
 
Posted by MrsM (# 14940) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd to like to take my sovereign space and insert it into his sovereign space until he screams.
Why does it always come back to penetrating something guys?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsM:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd to like to take my sovereign space and insert it into his sovereign space until he screams.
Why does it always come back to penetrating something guys?
I took the basic notion of invading personal space and combined it with a moment of crankiness I was having against right-wing conservative homophobes. You had to be there.
 
Posted by JB (# 1776) on :
 
My attempt to edit my previous post timed out. Here's the second try:

Anarchist Cookbook has been around for years. It has inspired copy-cats and web communities (a web search can find some; McAfee will warn you not to click on them). But note the author's comments under "Editorial Reviews".
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
I wonder, if the only thing that stops a bad guy with a 3-D printer is a good guy with a 3-D printer.
A power failure would also stop him.
 
Posted by MrsM (# 14940) on :
 
Anyway, you just know that thing was designed to work with a Mac. So we're fine, I mean, as if a terrorist uses a Mac!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
I wonder, if the only thing that stops a bad guy with a 3-D printer is a good guy with a 3-D printer.
I'm stealing that for my next book [Cool]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsM:
Anyway, you just know that thing was designed to work with a Mac. So we're fine, I mean, as if a terrorist uses a Mac!
Suicide bombers in Lebanon in the 1980s were typically middle-class, better-educated than average and earning more than the average wage.

This may or may not have implications for your theory.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't think so. Anyone can get the components to make a bomb or has them already, just requires assembly, with instructions freely available. What's remarkable is that most of us don't do these things.
Yes, but I' be disappointed/concerned if (as) someone was distributing convenient bomb designs to guard our sovereign space.

Historical/Scientific information would be different, and it might illustrate what not to do. (although some prudence would make sense).
Try here for pretty much all you need to know. While the intent at Wikipedia is (presumably) not to "guard our sovereign space", the basics are all there. As they are in any public library you like, generally.

No_prophet makes a great point here - it's not that no one knows how to do it, it's that most folks don't, for a variety of reasons.
That's actually a pretty good example of the borderline Hist/Sci aspect.

If you read it though, it's actually missing quite a bit, compared to the analogue (which would as well as a pipe-which wiki does give info, suggest an appropriate seal and components-which wiki doesn't, and the prices of the explosive ingredients* - wiki does give some info of some not to use).
You could make something, but you'd effectively be reinventing with some hints, and all the problems and risks of setting red flags or it literally blowing up in your face, as supposed to the convenience of a kit.
The tension can be seen that while several people have used pipe bombs presumably independently to devastating effect (see the article linked), several have blown themselves up (again),and a fair number are UDV (who lets be honest, had better info than the library).

But yes, it's good that many of us don't do bad things. Either with gun or bomb. The problem is making the others stand out and being able to stop them.

*although in the first draft, ones so ineffective to only prove the concept and requiring fancy milling machinary. In practical terms I agree this doesn't seem scary.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
I wonder, if the only thing that stops a bad guy with a 3-D printer is a good guy with a 3-D printer.
A power failure would also stop him.
Better remember to print a hand-cranked clockwork generator first [Razz] Maybe the government can restrict their use by only allowing licensed fabricators to buy wire suitable for winding into coils. Then the Bad Fabricators will have to move to places where they can do it all by solar power.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I just read a local version of the news story, and I'm seriously experiencing the kind of urges to do physical violence to this guy that demonstrate fairly well why weapons shouldn't be easily available.

I can't decide which quote made me crankier. Was it this bit of moronic non-thinking?

quote:
"I recognise that the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what it is - it's a gun," Mr Wilson said.

"But... I don't think that's a reason not to do it or put it out there."
Or was it this bit of 'fuck the law'?

quote:
"We thought how interesting would it be not just to 3D print a gun, but to open source it and then allow anyone in the world to 3D print a gun, regardless of whatever their laws had to say"
Oh yeah. I'm sure now. It was the second. FUCK the rule of law. FUCK the consideration of the pros and cons of different kinds of people having access to weapons. FUCK assessment and debate of control measures. FUCK licensing. Wouldn't it be really INTERESTING to just bypass all of that?

You know what else would be interesting? Dissecting your brain extremely slowly to see if there's something in the structure that explains why you are the kind of complete and utter turd who espouses all this stuff about anarchy while living comfortably off society's infrastructure. If you want to live in a state of lawlessness, go find yourself a patch of wilderness with no publicly funded services whatsoever, generate your own fucking electricity for your fucking printer and see how long you actually survive without any of the things that the law provides for you. We can probably find you a spare spot in Somalia where you and your buddies can bet on which one of you will kill and eat the others.

EDIT: Yes people, I fucking hate these sorts of anarchists with a passion. I write laws for a living, what did you expect?

[ 07. May 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Looks to me like it's just make suicide a whole lot easier for the plastic model kit enthusiast [Devil]
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
[Big Grin] Ans

[Disappointed] Marvin

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd to like to take my sovereign space and insert it into his sovereign space until he screams.
But maybe he wouldn't scream [Biased] Would that help your cranky mood?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Perhaps we could lend Opheo Erin's rusty farm auger from the Ship museum.

John
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Nice. Because the lyre really isn't sharp and pointy enough.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It's interesting to note that it has become rather effective to chase down child porno "users" (whatever that means [Projectile] ), it's just a technological and procedural problem to figure out how to track down this sort of thing.

Probably they don't need to bother in America, where one of these would be great to get with your O'Happy Meal or your cereal box of co-co crickets.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's interesting to note that it has become rather effective to chase down child porno "users" (whatever that means [Projectile] ), it's just a technological and procedural problem to figure out how to track down this sort of thing.

Probably they don't need to bother in America, where one of these would be great to get with your O'Happy Meal or your cereal box of co-co crickets.
I'd have a better idea how to respond to this post if I understood what the fuck it has to do with 3D printers.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Orfeo, don't be an ignoramus

In fairness, I posted a day or so before the media began reporting how it is done re 3-D guns, though the porno info is readily available. But rocket launcher science it ain't

Files have digital fingerprints, all of them due to the info they contain. I personally use md5sums (a form of hash, again use your friendly neighbourhood search engine). Child porn pictures are digital, 3-D gun blueprints are digital. Any digital material can be traced. Even small changes to files vary digital hash in predictable ways such that they can also be traced.

Read on: D-printed plastic gun faces U.S. government crackdown

quote:
CBC, from above link
Alarmed by the availability of the blueprints, Legary has developed a "hash," a kind of digital fingerprint that would detect the presence of 3D printing instructions for plastic pistols....

So we want to be able to detect those files and remove them from the networks and from the environments before they have a chance to be printed … and control the printer from producing these weapons in the first place.


[ 11. May 2013, 16:05: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Pretty damn mellow, anti-gunners. Where's the froth? The rending of garments?

At least try.
When a spotty teenager makes himself a cache of plastic guns and plugs a classroom of kids we might manage a bit of frothing comet.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:


Files have digital fingerprints, all of them due to the info they contain. I personally use md5sums (a form of hash, again use your friendly neighbourhood search engine). Child porn pictures are digital, 3-D gun blueprints are digital. Any digital material can be traced. Even small changes to files vary digital hash in predictable ways such that they can also be traced.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

360 degrees wrong. The idea of using hashes like MD5 for digital fingerprinting is precisely that small changes to files change the hash in ways that are hard to predict. In fact the easiest way to find the new hash is to make one from the entire changed file. If it were not so then you could predict changes in encrypted files by comparing differences in their checksums or digital fingerprints which kind of misses the point. It ought to be impossible to make a hash without having the whole original file in your possession. (In fact there are weaknesses in MD5 that might allow this to be done in some cases, but so it goes)

There is software to detect slightly obfuscated versions of things like digital photographs or music but it doesn't work on hashes it works on the original files. Its basically the same as the software you can use to search the Net for pictures that are similar to other pictures. Californian lawyer-bots use it to spam people who download unauthorised copies of films and music with threats of legal action.


If it *did* use the hashes/checksums/signatures and so on all you need to do is strip them out to make an anonymous file. The purpose of somethign like and MD6 signature on a piece of source code is to prove to the user who downloads it that it is the original thing. Once they have downloaded it that can discard the hash anyway.

And it is just source code. The machine-readable designs for the 3d printer I mean. Its not any kind of image or digitised "blueprint". Just a sequence of words and numbers. Trivial to obfuscate if you really wanted to.

Anyway the really scary thing is what happens when the 3D printer can make a complete 3D printer?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Awright! The fuckwits have arrived on schedule.

The government having failed to regulate weapons, California State Senator Leland Yee wants it to try to regulate ownership and use of 3D printers.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Files have digital fingerprints, all of them due to the info they contain. I personally use md5sums (a form of hash, again use your friendly neighbourhood search engine). Child porn pictures are digital, 3-D gun blueprints are digital. Any digital material can be traced. Even small changes to files vary digital hash in predictable ways such that they can also be traced.
Oh yeah. That's going to be stunningly helpful in tracing the actual gun used in an assault, isn't it?

Idiot.
 
Posted by Just Julian (# 12800) on :
 
I suspected when I first heard about this that it wouldn't be up to much, now confirmed http://mirr.im/10qbZng
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Orfeo, don't be an ignoramus
Of all the people on this thread that I might call an ignoramus, orfeo isn't one of them. Asshole sometimes. Jerk, betimes. But ignoramus? Not bloody often.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
This lets anyone with the right 3-D printer make a simple kind of single-use gun - basically, not much more than a tube. But as I've mentioned before, something like an AK-47 is easy enough for any passable machinist with a reasonable metal shop to produce. The fact that this is plastic, and won't trip a metal detector will cause some excitement, but in terms of practical threat, this just isn't a very useful weapon.

But let's say someone designs a better weapon. A plastic multi-barrel Derringer is certainly doable.

You still have to get ammunition. Making bullets and casings isn't too hard, but making smokeless powder is difficult. Gunpowder is easy enough to make, although not without risk - I'd lay reasonable odds on someone trying to mill gunpowder injuring himself before producing anything useful.

In general, a crude, basic gun is easy to make, but ammunition is harder.

Similarly, this guy, a truck driver who is well worth talking to if you get the chance, has built a replica of Little Boy (the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima). It's not terribly hard - the really complicated bit is making enriched U-235 (which he doesn't have!)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hmm, why would one need to make ammunition? Not that hard to acquire in the US, yeah? If one cared to, buying the shells and the powder and the lead is not so difficult either.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hmm, why would one need to make ammunition? Not that hard to acquire in the US, yeah? If one cared to, buying the shells and the powder and the lead is not so difficult either.
Sure, but if you're in the US, acquiring a very much better gun is equally easy. Not a non-metallic gun, but I'm not convinced that actually matters. Yes, maybe you could smuggle this plastic thing into a courthouse or somewhere and shoot the judge, but you'll get immediately taken down, so you don't actually lose anything over acquiring decent weapons, and shooting the cop on duty by the metal detector first.

More concern was being expressed about this upthread in relation to countries where weapons and ammunition are not readily available.
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
But we know that the US is kind of a lost cause. It this whole thing not actually more about the other half of the world?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
If someone starts printing sten guns we will have a problem.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If someone starts printing sten guns we will have a problem.
Although Sten Gun's actually were designed to be easily mass manufactured in 'primitive' settings.

(see I have learnt something from the thread)

Although only around 4 million Guns were made by the UK during WW2. Around 6.5 million women were working in Civilian war work (I'm not sure what proportion would be actually making guns, PANFMA 650 that is 1:10000 works out to 3 guns a person-day). At war footing, full mass production etc...
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
From the wiki as it's interesting about the sten.
sten

5 man hours in Britain.

28,000 made by Germany at a factory.
200 were made each a Danish resistance group in a bicycle repair shop and a group in a construction company.
Poland had >23 underground workshops and made 2000.

I'm not sure where that puts theories about underground design, making weapons against Nazi's in Denmark/Poland is different to making weapon's against the police in the UK or USA. But it swings both ways.
E.g. at least that at least one of the Polish ones were made with legal elements (e.g. from hospital equipment) would it have been so easier to source these from innocent civilians in a free country or from not so innocent civilians under a foreign power.
And clearly a factory and legality helps.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Even here in post-industrial Britain I know people with metal-working lathes and other tools. One bloke I know has made cylinders and pistons for motorbike engines in his shed. If you can do that you can make guns a lot better than anything plastic.

And this plastic gun *isn't* plastic when its ready for firing. There is metal. It still needs ammunition and a firing pin and some stuff. So its not going to be smugglable onto airliners and other high-security locations. A bit of a storm in a teacup.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
But we know that the US is kind of a lost cause. It this whole thing not actually more about the other half of the world?
You give us too much credit. Half?! The Chinese beg to differ.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Awright! The fuckwits have arrived on schedule.

The government having failed to regulate weapons, California State Senator Leland Yee wants it to try to regulate ownership and use of 3D printers.
And now, Forbes tells us of some hobbyists creating a firearm with a consumer-grade 3d printer, the delightfully named Lulzbot A0-101.

I wonder what Leland Yee and his co-fuckwits would legislate now.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0