Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i was always of the state of mind that information capable of empowering acts of violence and murder should not be illegal. prime example would be the infamous "anarchist's cookbook"

but here we have an automatic weapon of potential mass-murder, created by a 3d printer, from a file which could easily be shared online:

W1U5rEAUD4E

so does this cross the line? was the line crossed long ago? should this be permitted to preserve our right to information?

im too baffled at this point to form an opinion but i'd like to read your thoughts on the matter.

So far as I'm aware, the gun nor the bullets from that video are from a 3d printer. Just the magazine casing. The lower receiver can also be 3d printed on an AR-15. Although there is a 3d printed gun out there the manufacturer has added metal components to adhere to certain laws such as the undetectable firearms laws. It's one ugly bastard of a gun though.

It's an interesting question, but if you are American, it is entirely moot at this point.

The access to 3D printing technology is a far greater barrier than are gun laws. For the foreseeable future, it will still be cheaper and easier to buy those weapons from stores or on the black market than to print your own.

EDIT: there is also the fact that people have been making their own guns for decades

Originally posted by jaden101
So far as I'm aware, the gun nor the bullets from that video are from a 3d printer. Just the magazine casing. The lower receiver can also be 3d printed on an AR-15. Although there is a 3d printed gun out there the manufacturer has added metal components to adhere to certain laws such as the undetectable firearms laws. It's one ugly bastard of a gun though.

The section they are printing is among the most...force intensive. It is a great section to be having success with. If I am to understand the project correctly, they chose the lower-receiver because it would be the second most likely piece to break. I think that only the barrel would be more intense.

Originally posted by Oliver North
It's an interesting question, but if you are American, it is entirely moot at this point.

The access to 3D printing technology is a far greater barrier than are gun laws. For the foreseeable future, it will still be cheaper and easier to buy those weapons from stores or on the black market than to print your own.


At $200-$300 a month rental for a 3D gun printer, it is pretty dang cheap to print off plastic guns. I don't think they'd last long. But, that's more than enough to print off some handguns and smuggle them past metal detectors.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/04/fully_3d_printed_gun/


For a gun like that, you'd need to keep the "nail" separate with something like your keys or belt (with a slidey open thing where the belt buckle is (easily concealable)).

Disassemble the plastic gun before you put it in your carry on bag. Seems trivial.

The problem is the bullets. Those would still be detectable. But, you can do bullshit like put them in your thick metal pen*/rabbit's foot like they did on that one movie...er something.

Just proof of concept.

*Just thought of something better: a big metal vibrator. They security peeps would probably be too embarrassed to really give it a solid look or use the chemical sniffer.

I would honestly like to do some test runs for DHS. No way I would even come close to attempting any of this unless I was being paid by DHS or TSA to do so.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: there is also the fact that people have been making their own guns for decades

Which is one of the things I tell to the libtards when they think gun control laws would really be effective against gun nuts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At $200-$300 a month rental for a 3D gun printer, it is pretty dang cheap to print off plastic guns. I don't think they'd last long. But, that's more than enough to print off some handguns and smuggle them past metal detectors.

thats the thing

the guys who are behind the gun printing have had nothing but issues finding people to rent them the equipment. From the production end (and from the sharing end, most sites wont host gun-printing files), this is still not viable for the average individual.

Gun printing isn't going to become a major issue, at least in America where gun laws are so lax, until individuals are able to own that means of production, and afaik, low end 3d printers are still 10,000+

also, mr. moneybags, 200-300 a month is huge for most people, and far more expensive than the maintenance of most guns.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which is one of the things I tell to the libtards when they think gun control laws would really be effective against gun nuts.

well, to be fair, its not "gun nuts" that libtards are worried about, though I will admit, they rarely understand this point either.

Originally posted by Oliver North
thats the thing

the guys who are behind the gun printing have had nothing but issues finding people to rent them the equipment. From the production end (and from the sharing end, most sites wont host gun-printing files), this is still not viable for the average individual.

Gun printing isn't going to become a major issue, at least in America where gun laws are so lax, until individuals are able to own that means of production, and afaik, low end 3d printers are still 10,000+

also, mr. moneybags, 200-300 a month is huge for most people, and far more expensive than the maintenance of most guns.

That's because the dude tried to be as open about his intentions from the beginning and he even publicized himself. If a person was wanting to be shady about it, they could certainly get away with it.



Originally posted by Oliver North
well, to be fair, its not "gun nuts" that libtards are worried about, though I will admit, they rarely understand this point either.

Liberals and libtards are not the same thing. A libtard thinks that a gun nut (a person that likes to collect and shoot lots of guns including the unnecessarily powerful ones) is a major threat and they want to take the nut's guns away. A liberal will say that intelligent and meted controls are necessary to prevent guns from falling into hands of people that will do harm accidentally or intentionally...and an educated conservative will say the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's because the dude tried to be as open about his intentions from the beginning and he even publicized himself. If a person was wanting to be shady about it, they could certainly get away with it.

but, in America, it is still easier for that person to hit up a gun show rather than go to the trouble of printing it out, is what I'm saying.

That probably isn't the case for a nation like Canada, but then we get into what part of the gun violence seen in America comes from lax regulation versus cultural issues. One of the things I like to point out in that debate is that the vast majority of guns used in American mass shootings were obtained legally, and in fact, could be obtained legally in Canada. With the exception of the AR 15 (which jammed almost immediately in this case), all of the guns used in the Aurora shooting are available in Canada, and the shotgun (arguably the most deadly) is considered a long-gun and unregistered here.

When we get into the issue of gun printing, I think we have to start talking about how culture impacts gun violence moreso than regulations do. I don't think regulation is ineffective, it is just certainly not the panecea that gun control advocates want to paint it as. Same with background checks for mental illness... ****, get me ranting on that sometime. it is probably the worst idea for anything ive ever heard...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Liberals and libtards are not the same thing. A libtard thinks that a gun nut (a person that likes to collect and shoot lots of guns including the unnecessarily powerful ones) is a major threat and they want to take the nut's guns away. A liberal will say that intelligent and meted controls are necessary to prevent guns from falling into hands of people that will do harm accidentally or intentionally...and an educated conservative will say the same.

exactly

the thing is, gun violence (suicide and accidents excepted) is rarely caused by "gun nuts". Libtards, and a lot of liberals, get uptight at even the idea of someone owning military grade weapons and rarely make the requisite distinctions between different types of gun owners and different types of criminals.

For instance, the number of liberals who will quote gun death statistics as a way to advocate an assault weapons ban (Cory Booker, for instance), when the gun implicated in the vast majority of those deaths is a hand gun. These people have little to no understanding about the motivation of violence, irrespective of guns.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but, in America, it is still easier for that person to hit up a gun show rather than go to the trouble of printing it out, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, but how will that shady gun-show buyer sneak that gun onto a plane?

Originally posted by Oliver North
With the exception of the AR 15 (which jammed almost immediately in this case), all of the guns used in the Aurora shooting are available in Canada, and the shotgun (arguably the most deadly) is considered a long-gun and unregistered here.

Which is crazy. A shotgun, when used by someone that knows what they are doing, is very deadly...and easier to kill with because you don't have to aim as accurately.

Originally posted by Oliver North
When we get into the issue of gun printing, I think we have to start talking about how culture impacts gun violence moreso than regulations do. I don't think regulation is ineffective, it is just certainly not the panecea that gun control advocates want to paint it as. Same with background checks for mental illness... ****, get me ranting on that sometime. it is probably the worst idea for anything ive ever heard...

Dude, rant. I really really want to read from a person actually educated in psychology why certain types of mental illness history would be a bad idea for gun control (other than the obvious argument that a person can get a gun if they want a gun...and gun licensing is a joke).

Originally posted by Oliver North
exactly

the thing is, gun violence (suicide and accidents excepted) is rarely caused by "gun nuts". Libtards, and a lot of liberals, get uptight at even the idea of someone owning military grade weapons and rarely make the requisite distinctions between different types of gun owners and different types of criminals.

That doesn't stop them from making the same old and tired arguments, however.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance, the number of liberals who will quote gun death statistics as a way to advocate an assault weapons ban (Cory Booker, for instance), when the gun implicated in the vast majority of those deaths is a hand gun.

lol, that argument.

Originally posted by Oliver North
These people have little to no understanding about the motivation of violence, irrespective of guns.

But that's pretty much the problem on any type of major political arguments out there: ignorance. The people, while entitled by constitutional rights, cannot make informed decisions regarding many of this topics because they lack the fundamental prerequisite: being informed.

Originally posted by jaden101
So far as I'm aware, the gun nor the bullets from that video are from a 3d printer.


right. my mistake there.

though i think most can agree that considering the rate of advancement in technology coupled with lowering cost for manufacturing, we are pretty much locked on course toward this inevitability.

also, quibbling over today's manufacturing costs is completely asinine. in 30 years 4 color inkjet printing went from unattainable to littering landfills and being sold for $5 at yard sales.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
also, quibbling over today's manufacturing costs is completely asinine. in 30 years 4 color inkjet printing went from unattainable to littering landfills and being sold for $5 at yard sales.

actually, the point is, unless you are talking about the inevitability of such technology, this isn't going to be an issue for gun control for another 30-40 years.

Today, it is much easier to buy a rifle through loop-holes in gun shows or things like that than it is to print a gun, and frankly, the same type of people who want to print guns are probably already smithing them. "Gun nuts" and collectors are very rarely implicated in gun crime.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, but how will that shady gun-show buyer sneak that gun onto a plane?

when was the last gun massacre on a plane?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, rant. I really really want to read from a person actually educated in psychology why certain types of mental illness history would be a bad idea for gun control (other than the obvious argument that a person can get a gun if they want a gun...and gun licensing is a joke).

well, its like... idk 3 main issues:

1) there is no connection between mental illness and violence. As in, and people have done these studies, mental illness is not a significant predictor of violence. You can't say, a priori, that any individual with mental illness is more likely to cause violence than any other individual.

2) Such a system would require a government far larger than would a gun registry. Depression has something like 25-30% prevalence in the population, anxiety something similar, bi-polar something like 15-25%... etc. A lot of those are co-morbid, or overlap, but the fact is, a registry of mental illness, in which the state keeps such personal tabs on individuals that they are restricted from gun ownership, would be so huge and costly, that in terms of sheer pragmatism, you might as well just register every gun (a position I don't actually support anyways)

3) without massive government intervention into mental health, there is no way this system will work. Save every single person in the population being administered to a battery of clinical psychological testing by professional psychologists, who will be on this list? at one extreme, those who can't afford psychological treatment will not be on the list because they can't afford the testing or treatment, at the other extreme, we have high school counselors being able to put people on that list. It is nonsense.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, the point is, unless you are talking about the inevitability of such technology, this isn't going to be an issue for gun control for another 30-40 years.

i couldnt disagree more. the technology is already avalable to consumers. still expensive for the casual hobbyist, but 30-40 years? by your assessment of advancement we should still be using vaccume tubes in our garage-sized computers and printing in dot-matrix.

I'm not sure you understand my point...

As an individual, do you think it is easier for me to find a 3d printer or a gun that I can buy?

I posted this in the Anarcho-Capitalism thread, totally relevant here:

aTYWGrfo-ao

EDIT Cody Wilson being the person who initially posted the 3d gun files and is the main person behind the 3d gun movement.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure you understand my point...

As an individual, do you think it is easier for me to find a 3d printer or a gun that I can buy?

i understood your point perfecty and disagreed. it happens.

today it is easier to buy the gun. in 5-10 years i believe it will be 3d printers. in 20-30 years i believe 3d printers will be sold at yard sales for $5 and litter landfills. /MY point

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i understood your point perfecty and disagreed. it happens.

today it is easier to buy the gun. in 5-10 years i believe it will be 3d printers. in 20-30 years i believe 3d printers will be sold at yard sales for $5 and litter landfills. /MY point

ok, but what about the fact that access to guns doesn't actually really correlate with violence?

Like, if someone really wants to build a gun, today, you can do it with the metal available in a shovel.

not to mention, again, that the people most likely to use this technology, gun enthusiasts, are not really the same people who commit gun violence.

its a false equivalency. guns are often made in prison out of match stick heads and magazine paper, with staples as the projectile. the ability to create a weapon to fire lethal projectiles is hardly in the same league as printing out a 1000 round per min assault rifle.

One of the most amazing stories of ingenuity and insanity comes from the Filipino War of the turn of the century, where Mindanaon rebels created guns to fight the Americans with whittled stocks and barrels made from coiled wire. They'd load them through the muzzle like an old musket, and there'd be a small hole in the breech through which they'd ignite the charge. The way they did this was--because they were always smoking--they'd stick the tips of their cigarettes into the hole. This meant that if their gun misfired/the barrel exploded, they'd get a faceful of burning powder and hot metal wire.

They also made another kind of gun: a handcannon that was essentially just made from scrap metal and odd pieces of wood and was fired by striking a percussion cap with a hammer.

The point is, people who want guns will have guns, so if we want to control guns we need to find a way of making people not want guns.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
its a false equivalency. guns are often made in prison out of match stick heads and magazine paper, with staples as the projectile. the ability to create a weapon to fire lethal projectiles is hardly in the same league as printing out a 1000 round per min assault rifle.

Sure, I agree with you, but my point is more that, the people who are interested in guns and may be interested in this type of technology are rarely the type of people who commit the vast majority of murders (criminal organizations who have little trouble getting fire arms anyways) or massacres (people who often, in foresight, pose no reason to restrict gun sales to anyways).

The actual threat of this technology, I think, is moot. In a nation like America, you have nothing stopping people who want to commit massacres from getting guns anyways, and places like Canada, with heavy restrictions, can't keep assault weapons out of criminal hands. It is interesting that Orwell's concept of where power lies given the ability to produce munitions and such might be swinging more toward citizens, but that ultimately still leaves the state far ahead given things like tanks and artillery.

At the end of the day, I think it might exacerbate some issues, but the panic behind printed guns is irrational.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Sure, I agree with you, but my point is more that, the people who are interested in guns and may be interested in this type of technology are rarely the type of people who commit the vast majority of murders

just how before 1988 the only people with inkjet printers were wealthy eggheads obsessed with all things techy. now our moms and grandmas are able to print out photos while still being too incompetent to avoid downloading dozens of trojans. you cannot apply today's consumer market to when these things become easily and cheaply available and more user friendly

Originally posted by focus4chumps
just how before 1988 the only people with inkjet printers were wealthy eggheads obsessed with all things techy. now our moms and grandmas are able to print out photos while still being too incompetent to avoid downloading dozens of trojans. you cannot apply today's consumer market to when these things become easily and cheaply available and more user friendly

actually, you are still missing my point.

people who want to use guns for violence have few things restricting them, now. Even in Canada, the weapons used in the majority of massacres are totally available for purchase.

The causes of such massacres are not simply access to fire arms. Becoming paranoid about access to guns is avoiding the real issues, which are probably cultural more than anything else. Americans see gun violence as a solution, thus want to use guns to settle things.

im not missing the point. you are avoiding mine while using strawman tactics. "paranoid about access" and "avoiding real issues" for example.

maybe someone else might address my point. /optimistic

I'm sorry, I didn't realize what your point was, if not: "we need to be concerned about greater access to guns"

what am I missing?

EDIT: I know sometimes it is fun to take people's arguments to ridiculous extremes, but I thought I had being addressing this issue fairly seriously. Certainly, saying I think you are "paranoid", or, unreasonably concerned, about 3D printed guns is not out of line with even the OP of the thread (especially given the points I've brought up that you haven't even tried to respond to), or that you are addressing more core issues, or the "real issues", is not unreasonable... Especially given you have no real response to my points...

sorry if my language was so offensive you wont continue debate...

more strawman

you forced me to argue for one side since you have consistently attempted to marginalize it rather than address the actual question.

-negate the other side as paranoid
-suggest that the only true solution is a utopian society, so legislation is a waste of time
-suggest that already existing ease of aquiring firearms make it a non-concern
-negate the topic by insisting that the state of the art is somehow halted and wont become mainstream within a few years our possibly not even our lifetimes.
-attempt to equate a home made musket to an auto-rifle

while i am admittedly concerned, i also feel that restricting digital information of any sort sets a dangerous precedence. for example people having their lives destroyed for downloading a song or movie.

so can we stop with the aggressive strawman campaign?

ok, fair enough, the issue may be mine, what exactly your point?

The copyright holders of the piece they've manufactured should be more litigious?

I'm totally willing to argue any point you may have... but it seems now that you are mostly interested in attacking my intentions... which is strange given I'm a Canadian who supports gun registration and regulation...

i support gun rights and enjoy skeet shooting and target practice. i would also love to have the chance to fire an automatic rifle. this too is irrelevant.

sure, and I think it is ridiculous my country has different laws regarding the transport of a shotgun versus a handgun...

forgot to add: there is also the undiscussed issue of mass-production.

regardless of the ease in which a lone gunman can aquire a single AR15, what of the possibility of instantly arming an extremist militia, cartel, or terrorist group? this also must be a factor in discussion imho. certainly not a non-issue to schoff at considering the semi-recent 'fast and furious' controversy

I honestly think that is less of a threat.

Until there is some force that can equalize the distribution of aircraft carriers, tank and submarines, I don't feel there is any domestic force that can counteract a state army.

That being said, given the intent of the second ammendment seems to be that it should give the citizens a right to form a militia against government power, I think that groups like Anonymous should be given more leaway, given that technological warfare is the only type that might actually cripple the powers of a nation state. Hacker warfare may be the ultimate balance to the modern nation state, though it will be interesting to see how this develops. My personal opinion is that is should be protected, but good luck getting people to vote for that.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
'fast and furious' controversy

you mean the controversy where, because of state and NRA connections, the police couldn't track gun sales into Mexico..?

Originally posted by Oliver North

you mean the controversy where, because of state and NRA connections, the police couldn't track gun sales into Mexico..?

more to the point of weapons tracing becoming irrelevant and pointless to the problem

also the 2nd ammendment arguably supports state militias as opposed to unregulated civilian militias

Originally posted by focus4chumps

also the 2nd ammendment arguably supports state militias as opposed to unregulated civilian militias
I don't think there's anything arguable about it. The 2nd Amendment is clear that the reason that people should be allowed to bear arms is so that they can form well-regulated militias. You could argue that it's possible for civilians to create such a militia, but given that local militias often got their members to show up for drills with the promise of free grain alcohol it's not unlikely that the Founding Fathers had state regulation in mind.

Translation. In the future, people who think they need a weapon capable of cover fire for home defense are going to ruin my dream of printing LP's in my own home

oh god not another LP hipster

Sorry, I've loved analog recording since I was two. I'd like to hear the original PVC version of Rock for Light on vinyl. The mix before HR ruined it.

so you were into it before it was cool, then?

Yes, like everyone alive who was born before 1988, I was into it before it was cool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think there's anything arguable about it. The 2nd Amendment is clear that the reason that people should be allowed to bear arms is so that they can form well-regulated militias.

A good case can be made that well-regulated means trained or maintained rather than referring to things that have government oversight. Determining what was meant by militia is much more important to reading the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, like everyone alive who was born before 1988, I was into it before it was cool.

what a hipster

Shut up. You're distracting me from my attempts to record Revolver onto four palm wax gramophone cylinders using a cutting lathe. I'm also folding down all my stereo MP3's to mono which I will then remix in Duophonic stereo.