Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker


Would-be plastic gunsmiths fight for the right to create printable pistols.

The engineers out there may know what Minnesota-based Stratasys makes: 3D printer technology, used to create functional parts and prototypes that work just like the final product. 'Just like, you say?' thought the folks at Defense Distributed [http://defensedistributed.com/]. 'Why not print out a working gun, then?' It was this entrepreneurial spirit that inspired Stratasys to pull its printer out of Defense Distributed's clutches just as quickly as it could.

Defense Distributed claims that its campaign wasn't intended to sell guns to anyone. The idea was to create CAD blueprints, which would be freely distributed so anyone could print their own plastic pistols. "WikiWep is about challenging gun control and regulation," says its FAQ. "We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."

Stratasys wasn't keen to get into a legal debate with Defense Distributed. "It is the policy of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes," its legal representatives said in a letter to Defense Distributed. "Therefore, please be advised that your lease of the Stratasys uPrint is cancelled at this time and Stratasys is making arrangements to pick up the printer." The WikiWep developers response was to comment, "Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation," but presumably a website snark [http://defdist.tumblr.com/] isn't going to stop Stratasys from taking its printer back.

As 3D printer technology is so new, the law really hasn't caught up with the implications of its use. In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm, and of course different states have different gun control regulations. "It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires," said Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. "I have to go through a legal process just to try something."

Well, that and get funding. This isn't the first time Defense Distributed has frightened the bejeezus out of people; when it tried to crowdfund its project through Indiegogo, the folks at Indiegogo booted Defense Distributed from its site. Fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on your point of view - in September Defense Distributed was able to raise the funding it needed from other internet donors. "I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual."

Source: Forbes [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/02/wiki-weapon-plan-printable-3d-gun]


Permalink
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
As awful as their idea and plans may have been, I can't help but admire their simplistic approach. Plastic guns that have all the working parts of a regular gun? Would be an interesting experiment. I can't imagine such an item would be very durable, what with the heat and forces involved, but still. It might be functional for a couple of shots, I suppose.
 

Frontastic

New member
Aug 3, 2010
318
0
0
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
If only Defense Distributor had real guns, they could have stopped them!
Damn Liberals!
 

FEichinger

New member
Aug 7, 2011
534
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol
They have only been printing the lower receivers by now. Not entire guns. The question as to how far the technology can be pushed is interesting, though.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
No way all plastic guns would work for more than 2 or 3 shots. That said, pretty interesting idea.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm
Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Also, I would like to point out that Stratasys is the functional equivalent of a cross between the worst DRM and vendor lockdown attributes of Apple and Microsoft put together in the 3D printer world.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Angry Minnesotans sounds like an iPhone/Android game. MAKE IT SO!

Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Maybe if we were in the 50s. Glock would kind of like a word with you.

There hasn't been a truly plastic-only gun yet to my knowledge, but the novel part of this is printing on demand.
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Honestly, I have to wonder how much it actually would help. I mean, if we're talking about countries with extremely oppressive regimes, the main issue would be getting the 3D printers in to begin with (since the defense company was just interested in creating freely distributed schematics), and if the oppressed people of said country could get a hold of something like a 3D printer, certainly the regime could as well.

In more backwards areas like central Africa... it could *maybe* help some. Where its just men w/guns against men w/guns. But in a place like Iran, where the regime does have a modern military they'd basically be useless. That's not even getting into the question of just how viable an all-plastic firearm is to begin with and how its performance would stack up to traditional firearms.

Potential good intentions aside, I just don't like the vibe I get from Defense Distributed. I support the right for people to have guns, but I am of the mindset that it should be a more regulated right than it is, not less (limit the number of bullets in a clip, make extended clips and mags illegal and so on). My personal opinion is that the potential risks of letting this particular genie out of the bottle outweigh the benefits. The last thing we need in the US is *more* guns floating around, completely unregulated guns that someone with sufficient funds to get a hold of a digital printer could manufacture en masse and pass out with zero documentation or oversight. Guns that could get past metal detectors as well.
 

Assassin Xaero

New member
Jul 23, 2008
5,393
0
0
ravenshrike said:
In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm
Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:


And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Well, of course. No lease could possibly have terms in it dictating use.

Maybe they should print up some single-shot .22s to defend themselves from the tyranny of oppressive leases!
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
DD didn't think this through too well. The damned thing is untraceable; it's a perfect disposable weapon suited for criminals. However it's utterly useless for home defense or "militia" stuff.

In a way I hope they do sue Stratasys, so DD's list of donors can be called for in discovery and we can see whose bright idea this was.

-- Steve
 

iniudan

New member
Apr 27, 2011
538
0
0
I think the idea is stupid, mostly because damn thing got lot of chance to explode in your hand, due to heat deforming the barrel and other element around the chamber combined with the pressure created by firing.

But just for simple gun modeling I don't see anything wrong with it, has long has you remember to put a orange tip in the barrel if someone gonna yield it in public (else they might get shot by police for thinking they yield a real gun =p)
 

dangoball

New member
Jun 20, 2011
555
0
0
For those of you saying plastic is not a usable material in gun production, I would like to point out that there are already hardened plastics used to make guns.

Wiki excerpt:
"The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[31] This plastic was specially formulated to provide increased durability and is more resilient than carbon steel and most steel alloys. Polymer 2 is resistant to shock, caustic liquids and temperature extremes where traditional steel/alloy frames would warp and become brittle.[31] The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard."

Granted, there are still metal parts, but given time and money, I'm sure someone could come up with plastic variants of those.

As for the article?
Yeah, every army in the world is surely thrilled that any civilian and therefore any nutjob would be able to print himself working light support machine gun! Right?
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
let that be a lesson to people who get those 3d printers but dont own them, lease them for a company that does nothing with them, then use them with your real company.

Would have been an interesting project
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
It was either this headline or 6 months down the road "handless milita sues 3d printer company"
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Well, of course. No lease could possibly have terms in it dictating use.

Maybe they should print up some single-shot .22s to defend themselves from the tyranny of oppressive leases!
The terms of the lease that they cited upon revocation explicitly required illegal action to have taken place. Since nothing was even built yet, let alone anything illegal, the revocation of the lease was invalid.


Assassin Xaero said:
Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:


And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.
Because the BATFE needs to be slapped upside the head. Basically, putting a foregrip on a pistol makes it an NFA item according to the BATFE. You can thank the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA for that, most of the latter of which was quite literally cribbed from Nazi Germany's gun regulations. It's where the whole line about sporting purposes comes from, among other bullshit.
 

iniudan

New member
Apr 27, 2011
538
0
0
dangoball said:
For those of you saying plastic is not a usable material in gun production, I would like to point out that there are already hardened plastics used to make guns.

Wiki excerpt:
"The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[31] This plastic was specially formulated to provide increased durability and is more resilient than carbon steel and most steel alloys. Polymer 2 is resistant to shock, caustic liquids and temperature extremes where traditional steel/alloy frames would warp and become brittle.[31] The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard."

Granted, there are still metal parts, but given time and money, I'm sure someone could come up with plastic variants of those.

As for the article?
Yeah, every army in the world is surely thrilled that any civilian and therefore any nutjob would be able to print himself working light support machine gun! Right?

Yes, but 3D printing make thing in layer, plastic in real gun is made by injection or pressure, way more solid.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
rcs619 said:
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Honestly, I have to wonder how much it actually would help. I mean, if we're talking about countries with extremely oppressive regimes, the main issue would be getting the 3D printers in to begin with (since the defense company was just interested in creating freely distributed schematics), and if the oppressed people of said country could get a hold of something like a 3D printer, certainly the regime could as well.

In more backwards areas like central Africa... it could *maybe* help some. Where its just men w/guns against men w/guns. But in a place like Iran, where the regime does have a modern military they'd basically be useless. That's not even getting into the question of just how viable an all-plastic firearm is to begin with and how its performance would stack up to traditional firearms.

Potential good intentions aside, I just don't like the vibe I get from Defense Distributed. I support the right for people to have guns, but I am of the mindset that it should be a more regulated right than it is, not less (limit the number of bullets in a clip, make extended clips and mags illegal and so on). My personal opinion is that the potential risks of letting this particular genie out of the bottle outweigh the benefits. The last thing we need in the US is *more* guns floating around, completely unregulated guns that someone with sufficient funds to get a hold of a digital printer could manufacture en masse and pass out with zero documentation or oversight. Guns that could get past metal detectors as well.
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
 

Kross

World Breaker
Sep 27, 2004
854
0
0
Well, 3d printers are becoming more widely available [https://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html] as time goes on. So someone is going to have to (have to/want to? It's really just another tool to replace existing tools people can get their hands on already) set a policy when people use them to make weapons. I imagine there's people with private metal shops who can make weapons without any particular oversight as well.

It's not like without the gun you need a weapons license to use common household chemicals to make a bomb/incendiary device, or drive a car (may require an auto license! :p ) into a crowded intersection, or casually walk up to someone and stab them with a sharp anything.

The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
DD didn't think this through too well. The damned thing is untraceable; it's a perfect disposable weapon suited for criminals. However it's utterly useless for home defense or "militia" stuff.

-- Steve
That's pretty much what I thought, and it's kind of sad that that point seems to be getting lost in this thread.

This technology does nothing for those who want to own guns, but it is a criminal's best friend.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
The Plunk said:
I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
For better or worse, guns exist. People, in our species-old tradition of self-destruction, like to kill each other & will do so for fun or profit. All we've done in our history is go from "the biggest caveman gets w/e he wants" to "the best armed guy gets what he wants". Sad but true. While I truly wish it were not so, the only way we as humans have of redressing this is to match it.
What else can I say? Humans are nuts. Gotta do what you gotta do to survive
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
While I agree with the point on innovation, I do NOT agree that firearm rights are human rights. Just...how much bullshit is that statement alone? Guys, I am being forced to live without my human rights. The United Kingdom is an oppressive regime! I can't shoot at police officers, therefore they've created an invincible, tyrannical army that can ARREST us!!!! Open your eyes, people! Everybody should have a gun! Then nobody can be arrested anymore!

THEY MAY TAKE OUR GUNS, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
A plastic gun, in fact, a printed plastic gun (because it wouldn't even be as strong as plastic) would tear itself to shreds on the first shot.

It's stupid, was stupid then, and it's stupid now, and now the printer manufacturer is absorbing some stupid as well... the guys who should really know better.

Anyone stupid enough to print out a gun, put a bullet in it, and fire it, deserves to have the fingers or hand or face blown off. It's the new natural selection, our evolution as a species requires that those incapable of staying alive should be allowed to die. Anyone with a fraction of a clue could make a more stable and dangerous firearm out of scrap.

It is a shame, that things like custom stocks can't be developed because of a handful of stupidity.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance


EDIT: I can't get over him
This tool said:
"This is the legal regime we exist in," said Wilson. "It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires. I have to go thorough a legal process just to try something."
Oh gee, the government makes you go through a legal process before developing a way to mass produce firearms. Oh no they are so oppressive and old fashioned.


Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.


Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
BrotherRool said:
I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.


Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.
Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine and current laws certainly don't stop people from making and distributing them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.
 

Rainforce

New member
Apr 20, 2009
693
0
0
I lost the second I considered posting in a gun thread, but let's do this for the hell of it anyways:
the content of this thread is and always will be:
- >50% of all people from the US talking about freedom, needs more guns, and various absurd "that wouldn't have happened with more guns" scenarios
- reasonable people that get shot down (heh) by the other party.
none of them will ever listen to the other side, leading to a never ending discussion for and against the greatest US stereotype.
Well done people, we once more have proven our superiority through stubbornness and inability to learn.
Maybe one day people will see that those with guns will always shoot first at those who carry guns as well.
Being harmelss and uninteresting is what secures survival, not being a threat to everything around you (especially not other threats).
/rant
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
rcs619 said:
Zombie_Moogle said:
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I think we're disagreeing to agree here. My comment about illegal weapons being easy to acquire wasn't an argument for no regulation, as much as an argument for effective regulation. I don't personally think limiting clip size or banning particular types of weapons would solve anything. I do think that controlling the importation and sale of unregistered weapons would.
Now the real question is: how do we go about that without strapping on the jackboots? I'm honestly not sure
 

Zakarath

New member
Mar 23, 2009
1,244
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Honestly, I doubt throwing more guns at anything should be considered a valid solution to a problem. Probably just make unstable/violent areas of the world more unstable&violent.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )
It would have to be the population of villages that outnumber them, because you can't organise a country to efficiently show up in one place =D Even in villages a lot of people will be out at work or etc. You're definitely making me doubt myself though. Obvious examples would be that the militia would still be equipped with better guns but maybe a village could defend itself better. I don't really know enough about guns, what the range of effectiveness is between people who practise and people who don't. Maybe since the people who want guns already have them there's no harm in distributing more guns. Or maybe we could say that the problem of instability in those countries is that no matter who has the power, they haven't developed ways to force those people with power to act responsibly and it would happen again.

The Iran one though... I more convinced guns would be a bad thing. I'm just having the image of a riot where lots of people are armed and I just can't see that not ending with lots and lots of pointless death. I mean the London riots weren't exactly happy and they weren't well directed at the people the rioters were angry with either. Riots are messy and uncontrollable and if the people in London had guns the situation would have been bad enough. As it was there were casualties but people on both sides generally escaped with their lives, if guns were more numerous in London then more people would have paid with their lives. Rioters would receive the death penalty for civil disobedience from a scared frightened man who would also lose his life and the bystander who got hit by a stray bullet. They were firebombing stuff as it was. And Britain is so much more stable than Iran. At the same time the Iran military is plenty better armed and better equipped not to topple from plastic guns (probably) it might allow a Syria situation to develop more quickly, but as we can see from Syria, lots of people die and we don't even know that it's going to conclude in a positive way.


They're interesting questions, but they're interesting questions with the potential lives of thousands of people in the balance.


Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
BrotherRool said:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :p
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
BrotherRool said:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :p
You're right. At some point someone will do it and once the secret is out, there might not be much we can do about it. Maybe in Britain you could put a lot more regulations into the monitoring of 3D printers, but I can't see that lasting or working when they become cheap enough and the process becomes easy enough
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
This genie will not back into the bottle no matter what your personal opinion on the project is. Just like the nuclear bomb.
 

xomocekc

New member
Jan 25, 2012
15
0
0
"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation,"
Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to take away a libertarian's toy.
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I think we're disagreeing to agree here. My comment about illegal weapons being easy to acquire wasn't an argument for no regulation, as much as an argument for effective regulation. I don't personally think limiting clip size or banning particular types of weapons would solve anything. I do think that controlling the importation and sale of unregistered weapons would.
Now the real question is: how do we go about that without strapping on the jackboots? I'm honestly not sure[/quote]

Ahh, my mistake then. I just see the "gun control doesn't do anything" argument so often as a justification for no attempts at all for gun control :)

It's a tough issue, to be honest. If there are laws to limit clips and magazines, I'd imagine there would need to be a sort of 'grace period' where you could turn in the illegal items without repercussions. Then, when that's done, being found in possession of them would be illegal. As for controlling unregistered firearms and other illegal firearms... that's going to take good, old-fashioned police work... which, honestly, gets harder and harder with all the funding cuts to police stations around the country. Legalizing marijuana would probably help some. At least it would shift police manpower to hunting down and busting people who are selling something that actually hurts people.

Either way, it's certainly a tough issue, and completely impossible in the current government. The NRA would raise a fit, all the right-wing groups they puppeteer would join in and everyone would back off. Before we can even think about things like more efficient gun regulations, among other things, we'd need to get money and superPAC's out of politics (preferably with a constitutional amendment to negate the Citizen's United ruling). Until we do that, nothing can be done because the system is fundamentally broken and stacked against the vast majority of people.
 

zidine100

New member
Mar 19, 2009
1,016
0
0
And someone has opened pandoras box, you can now say goodbye to 3d printers ever becoming common place in the uk or any country with strict gun control laws. (lets not get into a argument about this but i agree with our governments laws on gun control at the moment)
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
ravenshrike said:
The terms of the lease that they cited upon revocation explicitly required illegal action to have taken place. Since nothing was even built yet, let alone anything illegal, the revocation of the lease was invalid.
They actually didn't say that. Try again.

Zombie_Moogle said:
That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
The beautiful thing being that the people who can already afford the guns are more likely to have the financial means to acquire the printer and materials needed to make this work.

But at least the next village that group rolls into will still be able to wish for better means....As we've effectively better armed the people who already have access.

Starving, impoverished nations are going to afford all this how, exactly? Wishful thinking? I think people are too busy thinking about this magic ideal to deal with the actual logistics.
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
Assassin Xaero said:
Reminds me of Balls of Fury...
Reminds me of weapon crafting in Dead Space 3 at a "work bench" type in what kind of gun you want have the materials and poof unregistered & untraceable guns for everyone.

Sorry Sally it looks like your mommy's killer won't be easy to find since he/she made his/her own gun and left it at the scene with no finger prints on it.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Wanting to open-source the ability to make weapons that can be easily smuggled onto an airline doesn't make you an innovative protector of Second Amendment rights and American Individualism(tm). I'm pretty sure it just makes you a world-class irresponsible dick.
 

regalphantom

New member
Feb 10, 2011
211
0
0
Just so everybody knows, even if the 3D printer company allowed them to keep their printer, printed guns would not work. Having worked with multiple high-end printers in the past, it is highly unlikely that the material quality is no where near high enough to make something that would be able to withstand the forces involved in propelling a bullet.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Callate said:
Wanting to open-source the ability to make weapons that can be easily smuggled onto an airline doesn't make you an innovative protector of Second Amendment rights and American Individualism(tm). I'm pretty sure it just makes you a world-class irresponsible dick.
You say that as though there's a discernable difference.
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?
 

Johnson McGee

New member
Nov 16, 2009
516
0
0
How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.

I'm hoping there's more to the design than just printed parts.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
No, no, no. There is a reason that you need a license to own a gun. If someone can download a CAD file and print their own gun, well, you elitist, wanker Brits who hold your barbaric lack of self-defense above us safer Americans will soon lose both your "safety" and your high ground.

tl;dr guns need to be regulated, even if the intent is positive, it will be abused.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Lucane said:
ravenshrike said:
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?
That was the ultimate goal. This specific project was meant as more of a proof of concept. After all, if they could do it at all, then they could see what exactly needed to be improved and how the printer and it's material might need to change. Not to mention 3d home printing is just starting to hit it's stride. Who knows what's going to be possible in a decade.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Ah innovation made cumbersome by idiots or greed.... A weapon is not to be fear...an idiot however is....
 

DonTsetsi

New member
May 22, 2009
262
0
0
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.
 

xomocekc

New member
Jan 25, 2012
15
0
0
DonTsetsi said:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.
Oh my good, stop standing in the way of innovation! Don't you understand that destroying oppression and achieving freedom is only possible through the Internet and open source software. This is why it was so important for people like Notch to take a stand against Windows 8.
 

KingHodor

New member
Aug 30, 2011
167
0
0
DonTsetsi said:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.
Supposedly, in places like Western Africa and Yemen you can get an AK for under a 100 bucks.
The Chinese Type-56 is probably the most common among those, with around 15 million units built.

In some areas of the middle east, an RPG (even newer models like the RPG-29) can be had for 500 bucks or less.

And yeah, I laugh at everyone who claims that the Glock is proof that you can make a gun from plastic because it has a plastic frame. The important parts (the barrel, chamber and action, not to mention the *bullets*, are still metal). It's like saying you can make a functioning computer with just a CNC lathe because your laptop has a machined aluminium casing.
 

DonTsetsi

New member
May 22, 2009
262
0
0
xomocekc said:
DonTsetsi said:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.
Oh my good, stop standing in the way of innovation! Don't you understand that destroying oppression and achieving freedom is only possible through the Internet and open source software. This is why it was so important for people like Notch to take a stand against Windows 8.
I thought Notch just didn't have the money to pay for certification after redecorating his office. /jk
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
So...apparently somebody so watched Die Hard 2 and thought that was a good idea?



OP:I'd say that plastic guns should be outlawed, given their undetectability.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
To anyone who is claiming that pouring more guns into unstable countries could stabilize them: Are you fucking mental?

No, fucking seriously, are you fucking mental?

It seriously boggles the mind. Guns do not make unstable countries stable, Government does. In places like the DRC there is not a popular revolution going on (Nothing like Syria, nothing like Libya.) but a bunch of warlords who go around raping and killing because the country essentially has no central government.

Anarchy can not be stabilized through access to more guns.

Finally, even though your arguments are "Theoretical", how exactly is an impoverished village in the DRC (for example) supposed to get hold of a 3D printer, access to the internet, electricity... You are talking about villages without wells, without access to sanitation, education, anything really.

OT: This sounds like one of the most fucking dumb ideas in history. The Libertarian movement never ceases to amaze me. Like Republicans all they serve to do is give people a bad name.
 

KingHodor

New member
Aug 30, 2011
167
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
OP:I'd say that plastic guns should be outlawed, given their undetectability.
I'd say plastic guns don't need to be outlawed, given their un-feasibility.

Anyone here remember the XM-8 program?
The Army wanted a new assault rifle, but one of the reasons they stuck with the old M4/M16 was that the large amounts of plastic used in its construction were prone to warping when exposed to the heat generated by the barrel during sustained automatic fire.
Now, in this case the plastic was on the *outside* of the gun. Could you imagine what would happen to a plastic barrel if you had a dozen bullets passing through it every second (ignoring the question how plastic rifling could spin a metal bullet, or how a plastic bullet could carry enough kinetic energy), or the little plastic gas tube with all the hot propellant gases flowing through it?

In the Riverworld novels, people are forced to resort to whole-plastic firearms due to an almost complete lack of metal in their world - however, they are vastly inferior to the metal-based guns they used to be familiar with, being nothing more than inaccurate single-shot smoothbore muzzleloaders with massively oversized bores to compensate for the low density of the plastic bullets.
 

Seventh Actuality

New member
Apr 23, 2010
551
0
0
"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation,"
"It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires," said Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. "I have to go through a legal process just to try something."
"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual."
Ahahaha are these people capable of saying a single goddamned thing that doesn't make them sound like massive cunts? They sound like they couldn't order a takeaway without bringing Ayn Rand into it.
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,220
0
0
Sounds like if they were able to make the guns, than start distributing/selling the plans. It would just "blow back" in the companies faces with all the lawsuits over so many people getting filled with plastic shrapnel when the gun exploded.

Bad idea from the start.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Gun rights are human rights? WTF?

So that means since i live in germany my human rights are being surpressed and i shoul print a gun to fight my goverment because they are infringing on my god given right to carry a firearm wherever i want?

Cool story bro....
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Johnson McGee said:
How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.
I'm seriously hoping you're saying that more for the lulz than seriousness. It's nice to make jokes about these being comparable to LEGO, but you do know there are far tougher plastics out there, right?

Like the ones GLOCK uses?
 

tangoprime

Renegade Interrupt
May 5, 2011
716
0
0
Assassin Xaero said:
ravenshrike said:
In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm
Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:


And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.
You would need a Form 4 tax stamp to do that, as by adding a grip or stock you'd be turning a pistol into a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which is an NFA weapon. So in essence, you'd be manufacturing an NFA regulated weapon where there was none before.

In the case of creating non-federally regulated weapon, as long as you're not intending to sell them, there's no paperwork required.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
Even as someone who is strongly for the (regulated)freedom to own a gun, I think the idea of easy to make, disposable, undetectable guns is a terrible idea, the good new is I can't see it working so there is no real danger of someone using this idea for crime.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Skeleon said:
As awful as their idea and plans may have been, I can't help but admire their simplistic approach. Plastic guns that have all the working parts of a regular gun? Would be an interesting experiment. I can't imagine such an item would be very durable, what with the heat and forces involved, but still. It might be functional for a couple of shots, I suppose.
think there are already plastic guns, they just cant be reloaded.

But please tell me im not paranoid about the idea of being able to print out a firearm being a bad idea...
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Lucane said:
ravenshrike said:
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?
That was the ultimate goal. This specific project was meant as more of a proof of concept. After all, if they could do it at all, then they could see what exactly needed to be improved and how the printer and it's material might need to change. Not to mention 3d home printing is just starting to hit it's stride. Who knows what's going to be possible in a decade.
Sorry but I can only think of negative implications of being able to reproduce guns in this regard for illegal purposes in black markets or personal crime/criminal groups.

The positives are great but they're already working on that before Defense Distributed wanted to get involved.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,398
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
That's naive thinking for a number of reasons; assuming the public in oppressive, developing nations could even afford 3D printers in the first place, that only means the regime can also print them too. Plus, as useful as a printed gun might end up being to an insurgent, it won't be stopping any regime tanks or jets, or indeed, the guns given to loyalists. As a means of manufacturing guns, its probably less practical and efficient than the methods we use now - the only advantage this printer provides is letting anyone have a gun - including people who really shouldn't, and would have normally been prevented by regulations, bakground checks etc. That looks more like a liability than a benefit.

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation."

I hate them for that remark. It's like someone tapped all of the irresponsibility and self-importance out of the collected works of Ayn Rand, and melted it down into the tacky neon slogan. These people seem utterly oblivious to the huge responsibility their scheme places upon them. Even if they might be right about printable guns and technology being the way forward, at least spend some time considering the possible consequences of your actions.
 

Prosis

New member
May 5, 2011
214
0
0
People should be allowed to own guns. I think there is a definite arguement for that, and its a right that should be protected.

That being said, a printable gun is a horrendous idea. While I may approve of gun ownership, guns must be regulated. This allows for guns and other simple weaponry to be constructed simply and in secret. There's already enough illegal guns floating around. We certainly don't need people being able to print guns. That would wreck society.

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
I disagree. The opposing side can produce firearms just as quickly and easily (even faster, since they have more money). I think it would only increase the number of fire fights.

Also, think about countries in the Middle East, where many of the wars and hatreds are practically tradition, and who is "good" and who is "bad" has long been lost. Or in Africa, which has been passed from warlord to warlord for decades, and the true leader is whoever can amass the most fear. It would be massive bloodshed.
 

theheroofaction

New member
Jan 20, 2011
928
0
0
Okay, I was going to make a joke, but I want to make a point here first.

There's really only one thing that's really been proven to reduce crimes.

These guys


ahem, now onto what I was originally going to say.

Anyway, 5 months from now, Glock will issue a complaint that piracy is killing the gun industry.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
Meh.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
maninahat said:
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
That's naive thinking for a number of reasons; assuming the public in oppressive, developing nations could even afford 3D printers in the first place, that only means the regime can also print them too. Plus, as useful as a printed gun might end up being to an insurgent, it won't be stopping any regime tanks or jets, or indeed, the guns given to loyalists. As a means of manufacturing guns, its probably less practical and efficient than the methods we use now - the only advantage this printer provides is letting anyone have a gun - including people who really shouldn't, and would have normally been prevented by regulations, bakground checks etc. That looks more like a liability than a benefit.

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation."

I hate them for that remark. It's like someone tapped all of the irresponsibility and self-importance out of the collected works of Ayn Rand, and melted it down into the tacky neon slogan. These people seem utterly oblivious to the huge responsibility their scheme places upon them. Even if they might be right about printable guns and technology being the way forward, at least spend some time considering the possible consequences of your actions.

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"
 

Burst6

New member
Mar 16, 2009
916
0
0
The idea itself is pretty stupid. 3d printed plastic guns would be 1-shots at most. It is however a forbearer of what's to come. 3d printers at some point will be able to make anything. The problem isn't printed guns, the problem is adjusting laws for it. You see how many freedom-removing laws corporations like the RIAA are trying to push? Imagine it when every single company out there tries to do that.

Capitalism will take a massive hit from this.
 

godofallu

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,663
0
0
My stance-

1 Guns cost way less than the printer anyways.
2 Those guns would suck compared to the real deal.
3 If someone wants to own a gun let them. It's not only a right but an easy to acquire item.
4 While there are people that shouldn't have guns, there are also people who shouldn't vote. Or drive. Or raise kids. Or be alive. You can't just have someone with power arbitrarily control society, even if it would be for the best.
 

Assassin Xaero

New member
Jul 23, 2008
5,393
0
0
tangoprime said:
Assassin Xaero said:
ravenshrike said:
In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm
Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:


And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.
You would need a Form 4 tax stamp to do that, as by adding a grip or stock you'd be turning a pistol into a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which is an NFA weapon. So in essence, you'd be manufacturing an NFA regulated weapon where there was none before.

In the case of creating non-federally regulated weapon, as long as you're not intending to sell them, there's no paperwork required.
I was told adding a grip would make it an AOW (all other weapons) since it makes it so it designed to be held with two hands, rather than one. Either way, still requires the tax stamp, which is pretty dumb in my opinion.
 

the doom cannon

New member
Jun 28, 2012
434
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
Meh.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.
This. I don't think a lot of people realize just how expensive this stuff is. My school's tuition is so high partly due to the 2 3D printers that are free to use by students. They're useful, yes, but theyre expensive and time-consuming too. I also like how people "know" that a plastic gun will explode after 1 shot. Try the XM8 project or Glock's "polymer 2."
 

Johnson McGee

New member
Nov 16, 2009
516
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Johnson McGee said:
How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.
I'm seriously hoping you're saying that more for the lulz than seriousness. It's nice to make jokes about these being comparable to LEGO, but you do know there are far tougher plastics out there, right?

Like the ones GLOCK uses?
I am aware there are tougher plastics, it's just that most 3D printers use that type of plastic. Even the one in question here is supposed to be for producing models to make conceptualizing designs from CAD drawings easier, not to produce actual working parts.
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
13
Country
Australia
Humanity creates awesome new technology.

People weaponize it.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP DOING THIS?
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
the doom cannon said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
Meh.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.
This. I don't think a lot of people realize just how expensive this stuff is. My school's tuition is so high partly due to the 2 3D printers that are free to use by students. They're useful, yes, but theyre expensive and time-consuming too. I also like how people "know" that a plastic gun will explode after 1 shot. Try the XM8 project or Glock's "polymer 2."
problem is both Glocks and the XM8 both have the parts that take the brunt of the pressure made out of metal
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
Heat problems aside (even metal guns have problems with melting), the gun could very easily explode when fired.

Also, the ability to just print your own guns would be nightmarish for criminal justice. The guns would be completely untrackable, and easily disposed of--just stick it in the microwave after you're done murdering and all the evidence is gone.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
triggrhappy94 said:
Heat problems aside (even metal guns have problems with melting), the gun could very easily explode when fired.

Also, the ability to just print your own guns would be nightmarish for criminal justice. The guns would be completely untrackable, and easily disposed of--just stick it in the microwave after you're done murdering and all the evidence is gone.
how are they any less traceable then a stolen gun or hell even a legal gun you can get rid of a normal gun by burying it and no one would be the wiser most places the only for of registration is a 4470 form which stays at the gun store
 

the doom cannon

New member
Jun 28, 2012
434
0
0
gufftroad said:
Yes of course, I'm just saying they wouldn't explode, and the .22 plastic barrel would probably last for a magazine before completely failing, in which case you would probably just shoot a hole in your barrel, not suffer an explosion
Edit: oh or you would gradually scrape material off the inside of the barrel as it warped, then it would breach in what would seem like an explosion, but would really be just the bullet punching through the already warped barrel. This stuff isn't the plastic your tupperware is made of and wont melt on the bottom rack of the dishwasher XD
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Glock pistols use a lot of plastic parts.

Edit: I see this has been covered.

I'm sure there's a way to create denser plastics, though. Science, away!
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
Humanity creates awesome new technology.

People weaponize it.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP DOING THIS?
war is the way of man man is the means for war

AVE NEX ALEA
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
Giving people the ability to make their own undetectable firearms which can then be easily destroyed.......

Yeah no way this can backfire.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
Oh screw this. A 3d PLASTIC PRINTER?!

Think of all the other shite we could make

>_>
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
I'm pretty sure the more readily available you make guns, the more they will be used by BOTH sides. I fail to see how this would solve the issue of oppressive regimes.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
3D printing guns...


OI! BIDWELL! I'VE GOT AN IDEA TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS!
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
13
Country
Australia
doggie015 said:
3D printing guns...


OI! BIDWELL! I'VE GOT AN IDEA TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS!

Mr Hale, I don't think our employees will go for these..

gufftroad said:
war is the way of man man is the means for war

AVE NEX ALEA
What?
 

Frontastic

New member
Aug 3, 2010
318
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol
The world by Dead Rising logic. A truly scary future awaits humanity.

Binnsyboy said:
Glock pistols use a lot of plastic parts.

Edit: I see this has been covered.

I'm sure there's a way to create denser plastics, though. Science, away!
Really? Interesting. One of the tell-tell signs of coming from a country with very strict gun control. These things, I just dont' know.
But yes when it comes to man's ability to conveniently kill his fellow man, science will find the way. Ah, science...

captcha: time will tell
That seems rather ominous...
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
Unless this is the functional plastic gun they're talking about, I'm not sure why this is news on a video game site.

 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
So it begins.

One of the greatest potential inventions mankind will ever create, castrated and impeded by the moral and ethical implications of how we will inevitably use it to more efficiently do unspeakable evil to each other.

Eventually technology will give each one of us the means to effortlessly destroy our entire species, and we won't get a month before someone pulls the trigger.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
doggie015 said:
3D printing guns...


OI! BIDWELL! I'VE GOT AN IDEA TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS!

Mr Hale, I don't think our employees will go for these...
What do you mean? They last longer than our NORMAL guns anyway and they cost less to make!
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
LoL, love the politically charged nature of these discussions:

"Guns aren't necessary and the world would be a better place without them"

"But they help law abiding citizens defend against armed criminals"

"But if there were no guns, then that wouldn't be necessary"

"But blah"

"But blah blah"

When push comes to shove, there is no actual harm in them producing plastic guns with actual functional working parts, these actually exist already. Guns that fire with minimum metal parts still have metal parts. You would never be able to create a firing pin out of plastic that could in fact fire a bullet, for example. It's kind of paranoid that they even pull the printer based on the mere mention of plastic guns with functional parts for the reason I stated above.

That said, the people at at the gunmaker leased a product and didn't buy, meaning that paranoia aside, the actual owners of the printer can take it away at their leisure for whatever reason they choose.

This shouldn't erupt into a debate about guns as this is not actually a good forum for such discussions, as we have learned in the past here.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
"We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."
I don't want to get into the broader gun debate, but... He does realise that if something is a human right, then literally every human gets it? Including children and the mentally ill?

Though to be fair to him it's hard to find a phrase to describe Rights that apply to everyone apart from those who are incapable of benefiting from them.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Rainforce said:
I lost the second I considered posting in a gun thread, but let's do this for the hell of it anyways:
the content of this thread is and always will be:
- >50% of all people from the US talking about freedom, needs more guns, and various absurd "that wouldn't have happened with more guns" scenarios
- reasonable people that get shot down (heh) by the other party.
none of them will ever listen to the other side, leading to a never ending discussion for and against the greatest US stereotype.
Well done people, we once more have proven our superiority through stubbornness and inability to learn.
Maybe one day people will see that those with guns will always shoot first at those who carry guns as well.
Being harmelss and uninteresting is what secures survival, not being a threat to everything around you (especially not other threats).
/rant
Haha, I enjoyed your rant until the end. Being harmless and uninteresting does not secure survival. That is only taking into account one situation, not both or all.

The debate itself is interesting though. The only way to defend against people with guns is to have your own gun. The fact that so many guns exist in the world is already fact. The thing that I find a lot of people miss is that it only matters on a case to case basis. People who don't live in the same areas as other people, who don't have the same environment aren't fit to dictate what people in that situation would/could/should do. That applies to for both sides. People who are pro-gun think more people should own them, people who are anti-gun think everyone should give them up.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Defense Distributed's mind set scares me. I would not feel comfortable at all if people were able to just print out a gun whenever they wanted. Walking around in a world like that, I'd be afraid any time I went out into public.
 

lowkey_jotunn

New member
Feb 23, 2011
223
0
0
Will the angry Minnisoteans be accosting the home depot next?



Home made guns are hardly a new things.

Maybe we should arrest people who are carrying flashlights




The real problem here is that the "angry Minnisoteans" don't understand where to direct their vitriol. They want to slap the hands of anyone who is thinking about making something that might possibly be used for nefarious purposes. That's 3-generation missing the point.

How about we teach our kids that it's not OK to shoot someone, instead of trying to control every avenue by which someone can be shot.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
DugMachine said:
The Plunk said:
Okay do I have to be the one to point out the wedding dress. Lolwat
Don't worry I was thoroughly confused by it too. And then I saw the guy on the right who I thought have smeared his face in blue paint, and immediately then thought of Tobias from Arrested Development.



Frontastic said:
The world by Dead Rising logic. A truly scary future awaits humanity.
Perfect! I'll get the "massager" launcher ready!

 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
Perhaps they can make me a fuck to give to the people who are pro gun. I don't have any you see.
 

sleeky01

New member
Jan 27, 2011
342
0
0
Plastic guns? Really?

If I really wanted to do violence I'd be making bomb casings....That looked like whatever I wanted.

Not to mention the opportunities for smuggling.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
That video is a strong example of decent advertisment being undermined by downright shitty acting on the part of un-trained participants. I.e all of them.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
ravenshrike said:
In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm
Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Also, I would like to point out that Stratasys is the functional equivalent of a cross between the worst DRM and vendor lockdown attributes of Apple and Microsoft put together in the 3D printer world.
Well said. I pray for the day that Americans can, once again, follow their dreams without having too jump through legal hoops.

I mean, it would be one thing if what they were doing was illegal, But its not. As much as some on this site might claim otherwise. It is really not illegal, I could do it today, if it was not for the fact that I prefer too buy my firearms from people that know more about engineering then me.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
"We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."
I don't want to get into the broader gun debate, but... He does realise that if something is a human right, then literally every human gets it? Including children and the mentally ill?

Though to be fair to him it's hard to find a phrase to describe Rights that apply to everyone apart from those who are incapable of benefiting from them.
I feel like I am pointing out the obvious but, the bigger picture is the right to defend one's self. He is focusing on guns to accomplish that, and his statement wasn't exclusionary of children or the mentally ill. That is where all gun debates seem to break down is not understanding this very basic principle. Guns are about the broader spectrum ability to defend yourself, mostly against people with guns.

I find the most interesting aspect to be the attention subjects like this actually get.. I mean, you take the death by gun rate in a country like America, and it's not a small number. But it pales into insignificance compared to auto accidents, work place deaths, and so on. It's from what is called an availability cascade. A thread like this produces a lot of statistics (some good and some not so good), and it creates a set of events where people end up with recall and discussion of things that is central to their thoughts. You get the same thing with the war on terror.

As a side note, I am just making observations about this subject. I have no interest what so ever in picking a side because at the end, neither side is explicitly right or wrong.
 

Saucycarpdog

New member
Sep 30, 2009
3,258
0
0
Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Many of the parts of the Glock are made of a plastic polymer, but I'm not sure if that counts.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Lucane said:
ravenshrike said:
Lucane said:
ravenshrike said:
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?
That was the ultimate goal. This specific project was meant as more of a proof of concept. After all, if they could do it at all, then they could see what exactly needed to be improved and how the printer and it's material might need to change. Not to mention 3d home printing is just starting to hit it's stride. Who knows what's going to be possible in a decade.
Sorry but I can only think of negative implications of being able to reproduce guns in this regard for illegal purposes in black markets or personal crime/criminal groups.

The positives are great but they're already working on that before Defense Distributed wanted to get involved.
they already do.

Criminals already have military grade weapons, some criminal organizations arm their entire organization with them.

Printed guns will add nothing that criminals don't already have. Besides, when you sling drugs to the biggest addicts on earth, money is already no object.
 

Spacefrog

New member
Apr 27, 2011
70
0
0
Saucycarpdog said:
Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
Many of the parts of the Glock are made of a plastic polymer, but I'm not sure if that counts.
It does.
It may come as a shock to many (at least 1/3 of the commenters on this tread) 3D printers can do other materials that cheap plastic.
Right now i am actually consulting a small 3D print company, and altough they mainly work in hardened plastics (a bit tougher than the stuff lego uses) they can produce in a wide variety of materials.
Some of those materials include metals for tools, moulding and machine parts.
Basicly, if the material can be melts, it can be made in a 3D printer, so making a functioning gun would not be a problem at all.

And yes i know those printers are too exspencive for the avarage consumer to buy, but so was the plastic printer not 5 years ago.
 

Frontastic

New member
Aug 3, 2010
318
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
Frontastic said:
The world by Dead Rising logic. A truly scary future awaits humanity.
Perfect! I'll get the "massager" launcher ready!


Ok, never played Off the Record but good god that was a thing in there?? Come on Capcom, you guys used to have some class (I stress the 'some'). What is this, Saints Row?

You can have your fling-er of depravity sir! I for one look forward to this new age humanity for the easy access to lightsabres we'll all have.
 

havoc33

New member
Jun 26, 2012
278
0
0
Didn't read all the comments, but I'm horrified by to read the OP's story. Such a weapon would be any criminal's dream.


I know it doesn't count for all of you, but it has to be said; Americans have a very, very unhealthy view when it comes to gun laws. It seems like you think everything can be solved as long as you have your gun. Why don't you start having mandatory gun lessons in primary school while you're at it? I'm quite sure that will help you all feel safe. More guns, more freedom! *sigh*
 

Blackdoom

New member
Sep 11, 2008
518
0
0
Seems like a rather simplistic way of replicating weapons.

Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
I remember a while back a guy made a replica of an AK out of paper that worked, last time I checked he had got it to fire and cycle rounds.
 

Frontastic

New member
Aug 3, 2010
318
0
0
Blackdoom said:
Seems like a rather simplistic way of replicating weapons.

Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
I remember a while back a guy made a replica of an AK out of paper that worked, last time I checked he had got it to fire and cycle rounds.
That's... rather frightening. Any war in 20/30 years should be pretty interesting...
 

Blackdoom

New member
Sep 11, 2008
518
0
0
Frontastic said:
Blackdoom said:
Seems like a rather simplistic way of replicating weapons.

Frontastic said:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?
I remember a while back a guy made a replica of an AK out of paper that worked, last time I checked he had got it to fire and cycle rounds.
That's... rather frightening. Any war in 20/30 years should be pretty interesting...
In the future all wars are thought using weapons made out of paper and plastic going up against paper planes giving aerial support and tanks made out of paper mache
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
It's a small wonder that they even thought printed guns would change things. More bullets flying does not equate to increased safety. Owning a gun is a hefty responsibility, and the way in which they approached it assumed it was everyone's right to own a piece.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't give a gun, not even a plastic one, to someone who's on antipsychotics, who has a criminal past, a history of violence or a tendency towards self-harm.

A society where everyone has a firearm, right down to kids, wouldn't be any safer than a society where these objects are beholden to individuals who have a duty and function to go with these weapons.
 

Andrew_C

New member
Mar 1, 2011
460
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
For better or worse, guns exist. People, in our species-old tradition of self-destruction, like to kill each other & will do so for fun or profit. All we've done in our history is go from "the biggest caveman gets w/e he wants" to "the best armed guy gets what he wants". Sad but true. While I truly wish it were not so, the only way we as humans have of redressing this is to match it.
What else can I say? Humans are nuts. Gotta do what you gotta do to survive
If they can't afford a few hundred Dollars for a dozen of the AKM's that Africa is awash with, the certainly wouldn't be able to afford the tens of thousands of Dollars for the lease on a 3D printer capable of printing weapon parts.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Karloff said:
"WikiWep is about challenging gun control and regulation," says its FAQ. "We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."
instead of taking the toys away they should have jailed them. the people are obviously criminally insane.

Also, this wouldnt work. the kinetic force of the bulelt firing would:
1: melt the plastic around the explosion that propels the bulelt
2: blow up the gun due to rapid gas expansion.
result: melted plastic exploding into perpetrators face, while the bullet not moving or moving at such velocity that it cant do any harm.
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.
Those already exist, and they don't create many problems at all. Airsoft has been around since the mid-to-late 80s.
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
Strazdas said:
Karloff said:
"WikiWep is about challenging gun control and regulation," says its FAQ. "We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."
instead of taking the toys away they should have jailed them. the people are obviously criminally insane.

Also, this wouldnt work. the kinetic force of the bulelt firing would:
1: melt the plastic around the explosion that propels the bulelt
2: blow up the gun due to rapid gas expansion.
result: melted plastic exploding into perpetrators face, while the bullet not moving or moving at such velocity that it cant do any harm.
Have you ever used a 3D printer? You can print with some VERY high quality resins. A plastic gun could be made to work. There are some VERY strong resins out there that could be used in a 3D printer.

They aren't criminally insane either. They are just attempting to take a new technology in a new direction. Do you really think the ability to print plastic gun parts will really change anything? People can already manufacture firearms out of pipes and any number of common parts.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
tsb247 said:
-Dragmire- said:
Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.
Those already exist, and they don't create many problems at all. Airsoft has been around since the mid-to-late 80s.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm talking out of my ass then, I could have sworn realistic fake weaponry was illegal for conventional sale.
 

PinkiePyro

New member
Sep 26, 2010
1,121
0
0
I agree with the people who confiscated the printer the a plastic gun would just help criminals way too much to be a good idea right now..
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
tsb247 said:
-Dragmire- said:
Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.
Those already exist, and they don't create many problems at all. Airsoft has been around since the mid-to-late 80s.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm talking out of my ass then, I could have sworn realistic fake weaponry was illegal for conventional sale.
Where do you live? In the US, realistic guns toy might not be "banned" few make them because they are afraid of being sued by the kids family after the kid thought it would be funny too pull the fake gun on the police, and then gets shot.

I can buy "training aids" that look like real knifes, but are rubber, the same is true for firearms (though they are painted a strange color, they can easily be repainted).

Finally, these were not being made or sold as "toys" but real working firearms. I know its been said but, in the US, it is not Illegal. In fact Stratasys might be breaking the law (not criminal, but Civil law) and are setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

I know people worry that once something gets invented then the bad guys will start too use it. But everyone is forgetting that one, springs cannot be made of plastic and all firearms need some type of spring. and two, nothing is stopping the baddies from doing this now. Setup fake company, lease 3D printer, give printer too baddies, fake company disappears, middle-finger too everyone.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
-Dragmire- said:
tsb247 said:
-Dragmire- said:
Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.
Those already exist, and they don't create many problems at all. Airsoft has been around since the mid-to-late 80s.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm talking out of my ass then, I could have sworn realistic fake weaponry was illegal for conventional sale.
Where do you live? In the US, realistic guns toy might not be "banned" few make them because they are afraid of being sued by the kids family after the kid thought it would be funny too pull the fake gun on the police, and then gets shot.

I can buy "training aids" that look like real knifes, but are rubber, the same is true for firearms (though they are painted a strange color, they can easily be repainted).

Finally, these were not being made or sold as "toys" but real working firearms. I know its been said but, in the US, it is not Illegal. In fact Stratasys might be breaking the law (not criminal, but Civil law) and are setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

I know people worry that once something gets invented then the bad guys will start too use it. But everyone is forgetting that one, springs cannot be made of plastic and all firearms need some type of spring. and two, nothing is stopping the baddies from doing this now. Setup fake company, lease 3D printer, give printer too baddies, fake company disappears, middle-finger too everyone.
I'm in Canada so it may or may not be the same and yeah, I was thinking of these fake guns being sold as toys.
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
13
Country
Australia
Gilhelmi said:
Well said. I pray for the day that Americans can, once again, follow their dreams without having too jump through legal hoops.
The issue here is the uncontrollable, untraceable nature of an underground weapons manufacturing cult. If you'd like to see your violent crime rate soar and shootings increase, no worries, but please, start wearing the clothing from Fallout first.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
Gilhelmi said:
Well said. I pray for the day that Americans can, once again, follow their dreams without having too jump through legal hoops.
The issue here is the uncontrollable, untraceable nature of an underground weapons manufacturing cult. If you'd like to see your violent crime rate soar and shootings increase, no worries, but please, start wearing the clothing from Fallout first.
Y'know, it's funny, anti gunners always claim this will happen every time gun laws are loosened. Guns allowed in bars? The bars will be awash in blood. Shall issue or constituional carry enacted? The streets awash in blood. Carry in National Parks? The Parks awash in blood. Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
13
Country
Australia
ravenshrike said:
Y'know, it's funny, anti gunners always claim this will happen every time gun laws are loosened. Guns allowed in bars? The bars will be awash in blood. Shall issue or constituional carry enacted? The streets awash in blood. Carry in National Parks? The Parks awash in blood. Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
The difference between "you can carry a registered, tracked weapon" and "you can just go ahead and build your own guns" is the issue here. Accountability would be entirely lost.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
ravenshrike said:
Y'know, it's funny, anti gunners always claim this will happen every time gun laws are loosened. Guns allowed in bars? The bars will be awash in blood. Shall issue or constituional carry enacted? The streets awash in blood. Carry in National Parks? The Parks awash in blood. Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
The difference between "you can carry a registered, tracked weapon" and "you can just go ahead and build your own guns" is the issue here. Accountability would be entirely lost.
Fun fact, it's perfectly legal to build your own unregistered weapon in the majority of the US as long as you don't sell it to anyone. All completely untracked. And plenty of people do so. Still no bloodbaths.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Yeah, great, good for them. Meanwhile, the sane, rational, non-continually-subject-to-mass-shootings developed nations like mine, who are perfectly happy living under the monstrous injustice(apparently) of gun control, will have to deal with crazy fuckaloons like these idiots printing off guns and killing people.

Seriously America, you need to deal with these inbred backwards hillpeople and their obsessive need to cram a firearm into the hands of every human alive the moment they emerge from the womb.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Fun fact, it's perfectly legal to build your own unregistered weapon in the majority of the US as long as you don't sell it to anyone. All completely untracked. And plenty of people do so. Still no bloodbaths.
Well, to a certain extent. You can't make a fully-automatic weapon and expect the police to not intervene when they find out about it. But yeah, as far as I know, most gun crimes that occur in the US are not done with homemade weapons.

Still, this situation puts Stratasys in a tough place legally, and I don't blame them at all for doing this. Private 3D printing is a very new technology with a lot of potential, and the last thing it needs right now is people getting all scared and acting on impulse to regulate it before we even understand the full extent of its uses. This isn't about whether or not printed guns would work, or whether or not Stratasys wants guns to be made with its technology. They just don't want the fed on their ass for aiding in the creation of unregulated firearms until the legal system has caught up with the technology.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Double post, sorry 'bout that.

[sub][sub]Barrowman...[/sub][/sub]
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
lowkey_jotunn said:
The real problem here is that the "angry Minnisoteans" don't understand where to direct their vitriol. They want to slap the hands of anyone who is thinking about making something that might possibly be used for nefarious purposes. That's 3-generation missing the point.

How about we teach our kids that it's not OK to shoot someone, instead of trying to control every avenue by which someone can be shot.
Um...did you read the article? Stratasys never actually said if they want guns to be made with their 3D printer. They did this because the legal system hasn't caught up with technology, and they don't want the fed on their ass for what could be legally considered a machine that can manufacture firearms on a large-scale. Considering the amount of precision and the machine and its ability to make things multiple times over, there is quite a bit of difference between making a rudimentary gun with metal piping and the potential to make extremely precise parts for very sophisticated guns on a large-scale.

I'm for gun ownership as well, but I don't blame them at all for doing this. Regulations for 3D printing are bound to fall into place soon, and the last thing they need is for people to be over-regulating it out of fear because somebody thought it was a good idea to point out exactly how useful it is in making very precise parts for homemade guns. Also, they don't need legal fees and controversies from hearings and investigations putting them under.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
My problem with this is that if these people are successful these weapons will fall into the hands of people we really don't want to have these weapons as well as people we want to have these weapons. A plastic handgun is the absolute perfect tool for an assassination, it's virtually undetectable, untraceable and could be produced in a matter of hours at a relatively low cost.

In a country where gun ownership is legal, owning a plastic handgun is basically an admission of guilt that you are about to commit a heinous crime. The reason for this is that if you are able to legally buy a handgun through the regular channels the only reason you would have a plastic handgun is to not take responsibility for firing it.

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo



That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
Best case scenario, they're able to kill a few more of them before they're completely decimated, a few plastic weapons would not be able to repel them. It would get more of them killed because they would be more confidant with a plastic gun than no gun. What I think it would do is teach the raiders to shoot earlier. Making everybody armed just makes everybody scared of everybody else, in a place like The Republic of The Congo or Sudan, it would mean that the unarmed people would never band together against the armed people because they are all armed. The communities protecting themselves with weapons would not know a raiding party from another community protecting itself with weapons. It would devolve into Day Z where the only option is shooting first. In places like the United States it works that people carry guns because we live in a society that is very non-violent by comparison.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
"On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, near Tucson, Arizona. Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll; one of Rep. Giffords' staffers; and a nine-year-old child, Christina-Taylor Green. Giffords was holding a constituent meeting called "Congress on Your Corner" in the parking lot of a Safeway store when prosecutors allege Jared Lee Loughner drew a pistol and shot her in the head, subsequently firing on other people."

Extended magazines allowed? Supermarket's awash with blood.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Do4600 said:
ravenshrike said:
Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
"On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, near Tucson, Arizona. Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll; one of Rep. Giffords' staffers; and a nine-year-old child, Christina-Taylor Green. Giffords was holding a constituent meeting called "Congress on Your Corner" in the parking lot of a Safeway store when prosecutors allege Jared Lee Loughner drew a pistol and shot her in the head, subsequently firing on other people."

Extended magazines allowed? Supermarket's awash with blood.
Standard glock 19 magazine size is 17 rounds. Witnesses placed between 15 and 20 shots fired before he tried to reload. He didn't actually use the 33 round capacity. Then he drops the reload. Then someone hits him with a chair. Not seeing how extended mags helped him.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Do4600 said:
ravenshrike said:
Oddly enough, these predictions NEVER come to pass.
"On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, near Tucson, Arizona. Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll; one of Rep. Giffords' staffers; and a nine-year-old child, Christina-Taylor Green. Giffords was holding a constituent meeting called "Congress on Your Corner" in the parking lot of a Safeway store when prosecutors allege Jared Lee Loughner drew a pistol and shot her in the head, subsequently firing on other people."

Extended magazines allowed? Supermarket's awash with blood.
Standard glock 19 magazine size is 17 rounds. Witnesses placed between 15 and 20 shots fired before he tried to reload. He didn't actually use the 33 round capacity. Then he drops the reload. Then someone hits him with a chair. Not seeing how extended mags helped him.
I can't believe you're arguing this. He used half the magazine and injured 20 people, of those 20 six of them died from their injuries. Now imagine what would have happened if he had actually used the whole magazine that was available to him?

Or take the 2012 Aurora shooting. Guy had 138 shots between all his weapons. Injured 70, killed 12 and could have been so much worse if the drum magazine he was using hadn't malfunctioned a third of the way into it.

If the only guns citizens had legal access to had six shots; when people go absolutely crazy, which they always will, it would at least mitigate the damage a single person can do. That's what I want, I want to limit the individual killing power a single person can have in this country. Because they don't need excessive killing power, we have things called laws and also things called police which deter crime. This isn't Darfur, there aren't roaming gangs of heavily armed people bent on killing you on sight. If you can name a single feasible situation within the continental United States where you would need to fire 100 5.56 cartridges without reloading in order to survive I would love to hear it.