Wiki Weapon Project Test-Fires a (Partly) 3D-Printed Rifle 289
MrSeb writes "In its continuing mission to build a 'Wiki Weapon,' Defense Distributed has 3D printed the lower receiver of an AR-15 and tested it to failure. The printed part only survives the firing of six shots, but for a first attempt that's quite impressive. And hey, it's a plastic gun. Slashdot first covered 3D-printed guns back in July. The Defense Distributed group sprung up soon after, with the purpose of creating an open-source gun — a Wiki Weapon — that can be downloaded from the internet and printed out. The Defense Distributed manifesto mainly quotes a bunch of historical figures who supported the right to bear arms. DefDist (its nickname) is seeking a gun manufacturing license from the ATF, but so far the feds haven't responded. Unperturbed, DefDist started down the road by renting an advanced 3D printing machine from Stratasys — but when the company found out what its machine was being used for, it was repossessed. DefDist has now obtained a 3D printer from Objet, which seemingly has a more libertarian mindset. The group then downloaded HaveBlue's original AR-15 lower receiver from Thingiverse, printed it out on the Objet printer using ABS-like Digital Material, screwed it into an AR-57 upper receiver, loaded up some FN 5.7x28mm ammo, and headed to the range. The DefDist team will now make various modifications to HaveBlue's design, such as making it more rugged and improving the trigger guard, and then upload the new design to Thingiverse." Sensible ammo choice; 5.7x28mm produces less recoil than the AR-15's conventional 5.56mm. I wonder how many of the upper's components, too, can one day be readily replaced with home-printable parts — for AR-15 style rifles, the upper assembly is where the gun's barrel lives, while the lower assembly (the part printed and tested here) is the legally controlled part of the firearm.
Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Informative)
And hey, it's a plastic gun.
No, it's not. It's not even close to that. It's a plastic lower receiver with the rest of the gun being not plastic.
As someone who's taken gun safety, I'm shocked he put himself at risk to test this. Making a shooting bench is fairly trivial. Automating a trigger pulling mechanism is a little more difficult but would require very basic knowledge. I'm surprised someone with access to a 3D printer would be stupid enough to pull a plastic lower receiver up to his face, put his hand on it and pull the trigger until it failed. In gun safety they show you what even an obstructed barrel can result in when firing a gun. That action mechanism would basically become shrapnel for your right hand, left forearm and face.
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they probably should 3D print something that will prevent them from winning a Darwin award.
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Insightful)
In gun safety they show you what even an obstructed barrel can result in when firing a gun.
Yes, but I'm having a harder time imagining what a defect in the lower receiver would cause that would be equivalent to firing a bullet into an obstructed barrel.
That's the car equivalent of 3D printing a new hood and then saying man that's crazy risky -- just look at the damage that can happen when the brakes fail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The hood is part of the structural strength of the vehicle.
What if you printed a hood from plastic that shattered? And you had a crash, and sharp plastic shards penetrated the windscreen and impaled you, "Omen" style?
Re: (Score:3)
This may be true of some automobiles, but it's certainly not true of them all - many auto hoods now are the equivalent of tin-foil with more thickness of paint on them than metal in them... On my car (Honda S2000) you can make a significant shallow depression in the hood, depressing it only with the strength in your smallest finger...
Re: (Score:3)
When I was your age, we took the hoods off our cars and drove them around like that.
Now get off my lawn, kid!
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:4, Funny)
When I was your age, we took the hoods off our cars and drove them around like that.
Now get off my lawn, kid!
Any chance you drove a Gran Torino?
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Informative)
op cit (Score:3)
Citation required.
I occasionally see vehicles with no hood whatsoever (or having an obviously fiberglass part, pinned down). I have yet to see any of them surrounded by angry tin stars, with the owner on the ground, trussed up like a chicken.
Re: (Score:3)
The hood is part of the structural strength of the vehicle.
What if you printed a hood from plastic that shattered? And you had a crash, and sharp plastic shards penetrated the windscreen and impaled you, "Omen" style?
That's not just wrong, its ridiculously wrong. The hood isn't remotely structural, in any form, in any vehicle. And no plastic shard is going to come from the hood and through the windshield and impale you. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
> The hood is part of the structural strength of the vehicle.
Nearly none. It's held on the back with two small hinges and the front with a clip. It lends a bit of torsional rigidity but not much. Almost not enough to measure. Any car can be driven normally for great distances with no hood. The biggest downfalls are aerodynamics and getting water, dirt, and debris into the engine area.
Also, plastic weak enough to shatter would not be strong enough to go through a laminated windshield -- it would just brea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For your car example, the hood can fly up into your field of view when you take it out on the highway and you could crash into anything.
Lots of people have DIY add-ons and modifications to their cars.
I don't deny the possibility for catastrophic tragic failure modes exist for all of them...
That spoiler the kid bolted onto his honda civic in front of you on the highway could be loose and fly through your windshield and embed itself in your face...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, have you SEEN what a Blendtech blender can do? Guns have nothing on that.
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? What's the worst that's going to happen from a lower receiver breaking? It doesn't even approach the situation, in terms of danger, caused by a squib.
As someone who's been shooting, dismantling and repairing firearms for over 20 years, I'm inclined to think maybe you should stick to things you learned in your little gun safety class and not speculate too far beyond that.
Depends (Score:2)
Is is just the stripped lower that is plastic, or is it the whole thing including the buffer tube?
Remember that tube that the stock attaches to isn't just for that, it contains the recoil spring and buffer. The bolt carrier flies back against the buffer, in to that tube, and is then pushed back in to position by the spring. If it broke, you could get a face/arm full of spring and so on.
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there's some risk, but it's pretty minimal. The upper receiver is likely metal, and the upper receiver holds the bolt and the barrel and chamber.
It's hard to see what kind of problem you would have if the lower failed -- feed problem with a dropped magazine? Broken trigger guard, or just some larger mechanical failure if the lower itself cracked or split?
None of these would result in a gun blowing up in your face as the cartridge is fired in the chamber which is an integral part of the barrel and connected mechanically to the upper receiver.
It seems like a good machinist's face shield and a pair of gloves would be more than adequate protection for the risks involved.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to see what kind of problem you would have if the lower failed
Worst case scenario is some improbable failure of the sear leading to full auto operation while being filmed. Whoops. Then the jackboots nuke everyone involved from orbit, just to be sure.
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Informative)
Well...
As a person who actually builds ARs as a hobby let me follow up. The lower receiver is also where the buffer tube is attached. The buffer and buffer spring are absorbing the blow back of the bolt carrier group and is responsible for returning it to battery position. The point at which the buffer tube meets the lower receiver is a potential point of failure since the receiver is not aluminum. This also happens to be right about where your face is. If it breaks loose chances are the rifle will simply fail to cycle at all. Although if it breaks loose and you fire a second round you may end up with a BCG slamming into a broken buffer tube and having part of it lodged into the side of your face. Even if the potential for failure is small it does exist. Maybe it is just me but until you work out the kinks placing your face next to it is in fact extremely unsafe, face shield or not. One solution to this point of failure is to embed a threaded aluminum collar into the printed piece so the buffer tube had solid threads to anchor to.
Re: (Score:3)
Wish I had some mod points for this post.
Re: (Score:2)
Worst case: Lower fails with one or more small pieces of plastic loose, is not noticed. Piece of plastic feeds into breach, which is hot enough the round chambers.
I didn't RTFA. Did they inspect between rounds? Disassemble?
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the high-stress areas are also in the UPPER receiver. If the upper receiver, chamber, barrel, bolt-face, cam-lock, and main spring are all from "typically manufactured" steel and aluminum parts, then using this weapon is not any more dangerous than firing a mass-produced AR. - Just less reliable.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest I think they should be looking at different designs entirely to compensate for the poor quality materials, maybe even completely new designs.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a fair amount of stress where the buffer tube screws into the lower. Both from torque forces caused by the user pulling the gun in tight to their body while they shoot and stress caused as the buffer spring compresses when the gun shoots. The stress is nothing like what's seen on the upper, but obviously you don't want the gun breaking just because you've pulled in too hard while shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took 6 impacts before the material failed- Just like a walnut that you hit with a hammer to get at the food; the first hit might be absorbed, but even if you're not swinging brittle shell material will develop cracks and eventually the shell will
Re:Did He Really Just Pull That Up To His Face? (Score:5, Insightful)
And hey, it's a plastic gun.
No, it's not. It's not even close to that. It's a plastic lower receiver with the rest of the gun being not plastic.
As far as the ATF is concerned, an AR-15 lower receiver is a gun because it is the part of the gun that is serialized. Of course, your statement is true if you're arguing above the legal authority of the ATF, an organization that considers shoelaces to be machine guns. [everydaynodaysoff.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's OK. Their sister organization the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) thinks Marijuana is a Schedule I drug(drugs you can't have anywhere, anytime), right up there with heroin , while the purified form of the active substance in Marijuana, THC (marinol [wikipedia.org]) is a Schedule III drug (drugs with much less of an addictive or medical issue, you can call prescriptions in by phone or fax, get refills of them).
Dumb and Dumber!
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the ATF is concerned, an AR-15 lower receiver is a gun because it is the part of the gun that is serialized.
Why is this? It seems like the serial number should be attached to some more important part of the gun, like the barrel? Especially since the barrel leaves rifling marks that are used to identify weapons. I would also suspect the barrel is going to be the last part to be 3D printed (not because of materials but because of the need to make it have a very straight hole and the ease of doing th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On some guns the upper section is considered the firearm. It depends on the gun. On the AR-15 it's likely the lower because the lower houses the fire control group (trigger/sear/hammer), which defines important traits such as whether the gun is full auto or not.
The plus side to this is that you can often take a fully automatic lower receiver and use it with different uppers to effectively create different kinds of fully auto guns without needing to get separate tax stamps and avoiding the 1986 prohibition
Re: (Score:2)
I have never taken a gun safety class but this was the first thing that came to mind for me as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If these guys want to be taken seriously
Seems more like they want attention / drama, which they're getting (from people who operate from fear, mostly). A good 3D printer is more expensive than a Smithy combo mill and the mill can actually make a full working gun. Do the attack tree analysis...
If I was going to spend time making a gun for fun, it would be Jamie's 'pop gun' that shoots soda cans with compressed air from a fire extinguisher tank. That one 'killed' Buster and most people who can change the
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised someone with access to a 3D printer would be stupid enough to pull a plastic lower receiver up to his face, put his hand on it and pull the trigger until it failed.
There's a reason D&D has separate stats for Intelligence and Wisdom, y'know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a kid we used to take a board with a hole drilled into it, put a rifle round in it and smack it with a hammer to set it off. Got good enough that we were actually hitting targets at 20 yards with it. No one was killed surprisingly. Where you have to worry about with bullets is A. being in front of it when it goes off... and B. having the gas trapped due to a poorly made bullet or a barrel obstruction. There's not really a way for what he made to fail in such a way that the gun would blow up. I'd be sure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On and AR-15/M-16/M4 platform the Lower reciever(sic) simply holds the trigger mechanism thats it. There is no safety issue. IF the trigger mechanism malfunctions then the gun just wont fire thats all. Its the upper reciever that you have to worry about on these platforms.
That's not completely true. The buffer tube also screws into the lower receiver. A failure of this while cycling could be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree their test method was foolish; but if not for guys like this we wouldn't get to enjoy the darwin awards each year as you pointed out!
Re: (Score:2)
And hey, it's a plastic gun.
No, it's not. It's not even close to that. It's a plastic lower receiver with the rest of the gun being not plastic.
Actually, that's exactly what it is.
The lower reciever is the "firearm" as far as BATF are concerned. The rest is just unregulated parts.
So, if you want a gun, you have 3 (legal) choices
Run down to Dick's Sporting Goods, hand over your Visa, and (after satisfying all the regulatory burdens), walk out with your gun.
Wait for a gun show, find a random guy, swap cash and gun on the spot. More privacy, less convenience, no warranty.
Re: (Score:3)
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they probably should build an AK with a shovel and a vodka bottle :D
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning [northeastshooters.com]
Counterintuitive (Score:2)
I wonder what having techie types with superior firepower as the societal norm will do to the prevalent stereotype.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me the military has superior firepower. And the techies aren't allowed to go around shooting people (just like the non-techies), so it doesn't even make a difference even if you ignore the military.
It's likely that most techies could already have superior firepower today even without this technology, as they tend to have above-average income and having more Benjamins presumably buys you bigger guns.
Re: (Score:2)
In a civilian clash with the military, the military loses. At least half the military will defect to protect the citizenry, possibly more. With defective supergovernmental structures such as republics (i.e. the US), each state has its own military (in the US this is the "national guard"), which will likely defend its state from invasion by the central government's military with extreme prejudice. The citizenry, if sufficiently equipped, vastly outnumbers the military--in the US about half a million troop
Re: (Score:3)
My IT industry friends are the most well armed guys I know.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what having techie types with superior firepower as the societal norm will do to the prevalent stereotype.
Instead of a bunch of smelly, hairy, alcohol fueled crazies running around with guns, you will have a bunch of smell, hairy, meth-addict level Mountain Dew infused crazies (with yellow / orange greasy fingers) running around with guns.
I, for one, welcome our new Mountain Dew swilling overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not smelly, you insensitive clod.
You should consider a second opinion. You have become used to the smell. Others around you have not.
Or do you still imagine people run from you shrieking because Godzilla is standing behind you?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing since you'll still be in mommy's basement with cheetos-stained fingers.
As long as they are the Crunchy Cheddar Jalapeno CHEETOS® I can live with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why do we need more firepower? How do highly evolved highly intelligent people benefit from this?
You would know, if you were one :P
j/k
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why do we need more firepower? How do highly evolved highly intelligent people benefit from this?
Shooting stuff is fun! That's really all there is to it. For most it's just like any other hobby that people have except that it tends to be more expensive.
"Plastic Gun" (Score:3)
Re:"Plastic Gun" (Score:5, Insightful)
Except those plastics were specifically designed for this purpose (IIRC that's the whole deal with Glocks - 'cheap' simple plastic guns). Not the whatever thermoplastic ribbon you get in a 3 D printer.
Real question: How many different kinds of plastic are available for these things? One of the interesting things about plastics chemistry is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different types available with different properties. Picking the right plastic for the job is a very important thing.
His point still stands (Score:2)
It isn't a plastic gun any more than any other gun that has a plastic receiver is. The barrel, chamber, bolt, firing pin, hammer, etc, etc, etc are all still metal. This "OMG WE CAN PRINT A GUN!!!!11one" stuff is stupid.
Yes, you can make the receiver, the low stress part, out of plastic. Big deal, this has happened for a long time. The barrel and chamber are the parts that face stress. Try that and see how it goes... But fire it remotely if you value your face n' fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that stress points of the plastic frames as well as many of the internals are metal.
Just to point out Glocks are plastic (Score:2)
Barrels, springs and working parts are the only thing that needs to be made out of metal.
also 5.7x28 is a terrible calibre. Its pistol ammo, that at best has the knockdown and kick of 9mm, and at worst is an expensive non-standard cartridge. Its far overhyped, and far overrated.
Re: (Score:2)
also 5.7x28 is a terrible calibre. Its pistol ammo
Strictly speaking, it's PDW ammo, not pistol ammo. Or in other words: coincidentally, there's a pistol for it - one, as far as I know. Does that really make it "pistol ammo"?
Re: (Score:2)
According to the ATF it does. This has consequences in the types of bullets that can be used. If something can be chambered in a pistol, generally you can't easily get armor piercing ammo for it for civilian use.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not armor piercing anymore than 22 magnum.
It is just a high velocity tiny calibre round.
It is just a more expensive overhyped 22 magnum.
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Is it too early to set up a kickstarter to pay for the finger reattachment that one of these plucky alpha testers is going to earn himself?
"So, um, guys, I'm working on a project that will involve briefly generating an overpressure of up to 50 thousand PSI accompanied by a release of heat, probably not more than a dozen cycles within a one minute period. It's handheld. What 3d-printable thermoplastic would be best?"
Object and Stratasys have merged (Score:2, Informative)
Object and Stratasys have completed their merger yesterday, so we'll see about that "libertarian mindset"...
not that interesting or new (Score:5, Informative)
Because of the weapon's design, the receiver on an AR-15 is a notoriously easy part to produce, and has been possible to produce on low-end CNC mills for years. It's not in any way the most difficult part of the weapon to produce; it's just the outer housing within which the actual functional parts are located. Sort of like printing a computer case but not printing what goes inside the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the weapon's design, the receiver on an AR-15 is a notoriously easy part to produce, and has been possible to produce on low-end CNC mills for years.
And before that it was designed to be stamped -- very low cost for very high production rates.
Re: (Score:3)
AR-15 lower receivers are not, and have never been made as a stamped part (expect maybe a few mad scientists making one-of-a-kind prototypes). Neither does the AK-47 (a real one that is, they used milled receivers). The guns that 99% of people call AK-47s are actually variants of the AKM, a cheapier replacement for the AK-47, which uses a stamped receiver.
I would have posted as an AC too if making such an uninformed statement. Google "M16 stamped receiver". You will be enlightened. Both the M16 and AK-47 were designed to have, and regularly produced with, stamped receivers. And before you argue the M16 and AR-15 are not the same thing, you should Google that too and make yourself even more familiar with the Stoner design.
The Wikipedia reference might be a good place for you to start. It will be on the first page of your Google search.
Why 5.7x28? (Score:2)
Why that round? It's not a rifle round (making the "printable rifle" really a "printable carbine") and it's not even a standard AR rifle round (which is traditionally 5.56x45, but the design is flexible..).
I would think for initial builds you'd want to at least target the baseline round for an AR, 5.56x45, or if they really want to work out the bugs, 7.62x51 NATO, which is a much more powerful cartridge and thus making the design guaranteed to be backwards compatible (from a strength perspective) with 5.56
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are more concerned with proving the thing will fire than having a rugged design at this point. The goal is to fire something and have it less likely to have it blow up in your face (literally). For that reason, they probably don't want to start with 5.56mm and particularly not 7.62mm rifle rounds.
Of course, again, as has been pointed out, the lower receiver is probably not going to be challenged very much by what you fire.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably technically a "hybrid" round, more resembling a cut-down 5.56 case designed to fit/feed in a grip-magazine automatic handgun.
Saying that it's a rifle round based on it's use in the bullpup carbine P90 is like saying the .44 Special is a rifle round because you can fire it in a lever action Winchester.
Re: (Score:2)
Niether of those is are rifles.
Nor is it a rifle round.
Pretty brave (read: dumb) way to test a gun (Score:2)
While the lower receiver doesn't see the kind of stresses that are present in the upper receiver and bolt carrier, the lower receiver failed exactly where it sees the most real stress. As the bolt carrier moves backwards during the ejection phase of the cycle, it compresses the buffer spring and that stress plus the stress caused by the stock attachment was more than the lower could handle.
Personally, whenever I test fire a gun, I put it in an appropriate test jig and make sure I'm clear from any likely fai
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen prices on 3d printing for metal and the prices to render a standard lower receiver would have greatly exceeded the cost of buying a conventionally manufactured one.
The "fun" with 3-d printing seems to be mash up. Next up the "hello kitty" themed AR-15 lower. Yes I've seen pink 1022s, but I'm talking about full on copyright violation ar15 lowers. Or a lower with a goatse themed trigger guard.
Why not go all plastic and tone down the lethality (Score:2)
Yeah, you can't make the other parts out of plastic because of the pressure from the round, but you could reduce the pressure and projectile speed making it a lot less lethal but still usable for targets and defense. There really isn't much between paintball/airsoft and lethal firearms. I wonder if there would be a market for people wanting something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've made barrels that are a sleeve of fairly thin metal wrapped in fiberglass before. I think it was mostly a gimmick and never caught on though. That'd probably be the minimum amount of metal you could get away with in theory, a sleeve for the chamber and rifling, wrapped up with reinforcement.
NEWS FLASH!! (Score:2)
ignorant panic (Score:3)
A busted beer bottle can be a weapon, or just a busted bottle. It all depends on the responsibility of the person holding it.
It makes no sense to me to panic about printing a firearm, or pieces of it, when I know any dumbass could just as likely run me over with his/her car while texting on their phone. Point is, address the problem of bad decision making instead. Running around making prohibitions just causes people to be more sneaky about obtaining said item anyway.
These guys just want the PR (Score:2)
This is a PR stunt. It's not like guns are expensive or hard to get in the US. It's not good engineering, either. If you're going to design a plastic gun, design a plastic gun, accepting that it's weaker than metal but you can form more complex parts. Maybe the whole trigger assembly can be made in one piece, with flexible parts. Replacing individual parts from a metal gun with inferior plastic parts is a PR stunt.
3D printed plastic parts tend to be weaker than injection-moulded plastic parts. The bon
Oh no, they didn't! (Score:2)
Let's revisit that:
"...with the purpose of creating an open-source gun [...] that can be downloaded from the internet and printed out."
Right, because what's really holding back modern society is this frustrating lack of weapons availability. I can hardly wait for 3D nano printers so EVERYBODY can download their own Ebola virus from the internet and print it at home!
Absurd! (Score:3)
Some poor bastard in a village blacksmith shop who can't read or write can produce AK47 clones day in, day out, that work!
Unless somebody "prints" a REAL rifle (one that can fire thousands of rounds of a useful cartridge (7.62x51) without a major failure I call this just more kids indulging in mental masturbation, trying to entertain themselves.
Oh good, more guns (Score:3)
Fantastic way to invest time and passion. The world, especially the US, needs MORE GUNS.
Idiots.
Re:Legality? (Score:5, Informative)
Since the lower receiver is the "regulated" part of the AR-15 (the part that the ATF considers to be the actual gun), isn't think rather illegal?
Home-made rifles are completely legal, you just can't sell or otherwise distribute them. The plans for them, on the other hand, you can distribute, hence the project.
Re: (Score:2)
You can build guns for private use, you don't even need to stamp a registration number on it. Until you transfer the gun to some other party you are in the clear, and even then there are some exceptions I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past, one could buy raw frames and receivers, put the parts on, and have a fully functioning firearm except sans a serial number.
These days, the frames have to be 80% finishes (the customer has to do the last part) to be legal with BATF.
What I'm waiting for is the changes in NFA/BATF policy to deal with the printed lower receivers. I doubt they would require barrels or other parts to be serialized, but who knows.
Re:Why is this considered a good thing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if you're joking or British.
Here, FTFY. We continentals have no problems with handguns.
Re: (Score:2)
The government should have a monopoly on violence
Oh, wow, not sure if you've intended it that way, but what a great way to sum up the government's goals.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a basis for Western political theory. Though the GP should have said State not Government. There's nothing sinister implied by it. It simply means that only the state can condone violence. One state can attack another (a war), one person can't attack another (a fistfight or worse).
As with all rights, though, with this right the state is burdened with obligations. The most salient is the obligation to protect its own citizens. So, the state must supply a police force (to protect against people) and
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Um... because lethal one's are easier?
Seriously, what kind of non-lethal weapon could you even make with a 3D printer? a plastic stick?
Re: (Score:2)
The government should have a monopoly on violence as it is the role of government to control weapons. Do we really want this?
Really? I'm at a loss to this statement specifically.
And no I really don't want the gov't to control all weapons (btw weapon could be knife/bat/any blunt object/etc. just saying). I know the Do we really want this was for something else, and to that, Yeah I think it's neat. Have no issue with this.
For fairness, I own 1 black powder rifle for hunting, 1 shotgun for hunting. I do have a pistol permit in NYS (pita to get in NYS and I can't carry in NYC) but no pistols.
Re: (Score:2)
The government should never have a monopoly on violence, as it will inevitably abuse that monopoly. Free people must always have the option to resist.
Re: (Score:3)
The government should have a monopoly on violence
Had that been true in the mid- to late 1700s, the United States would still be a set of British colonies. Within American political theory, at least, possession of arms by the common citizen is of critical importance to political freedom, since it provides the ultimate recourse should the political process be subverted so that it no longer recognizes the will of the people. This is the reason why the ability to manufacture arms at home is of value, because such self-manufactured arms cannot be regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to use printers to make weapons why aren't we making non-lethal weapons at least?
Because there are no non-lethal weapons. There are only less lethal weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Americans pretty much see it as human right to defend oneself from possible government tyranny. You know, just in case the government wants to run roughshod over its people.
FTFY
And before you say, "that will never happen", think of all the other times in history it has happened and how history repeats itself.
And before you say, "the government has bombs", do you think bombs will win the "war on terror"?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed a computer generated AR-15 lower is a total newb move. A 1337 skillz print would be a full auto sear. Now THAT will piss everyone off and stir an anthill.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm posting from your future and I have to say aircraft are the noob move. What with the 4.2 GW laser pointers available at the 7-11 checkout aisle.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm posting from the future here, and I just wanted to say that printing an AR-15 is a total newb move. In 2043, if you've got 1337 skillz, you torrent and print your own aircraft carrier.
So tempting to get that on Kickstarter just to see how much money could be raised before people clue in.
P. T. Barnum anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you should be posting in the 3D printed tinfoil hat thread.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal to manufacture your own firearms in US.
Re: (Score:2)
All this 'gun printing' talk is what's going to be used to help get 3dprinters banned or require a license to even buy/own. it's going to have controls slapped on it somewhere.
Stop fucking telling people that doing this shit guys. Until they are everywhere they are way easy to regulate and control.
You're not helping. serious.
Dear AC who cannot form a cogent sentence:
We refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Re: (Score:2)
All this 'gun printing' talk is what's going to be used to help get 3dprinters banned or require a license to even buy/own. it's going to have controls slapped on it somewhere.
Stop fucking telling people that doing this shit guys. Until they are everywhere they are way easy to regulate and control.
You're not helping. serious.
Yeah, guys, quit exercising your first and second amendment rights before we're not allowed to exercise them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying that more weapons are a benefit to nobody except those selling them.
If I'm implying anything it's "If you're stupid enough to try to use a 3D printer to make a weapon, and then use it, then I don't trust you with weapons."
Re: (Score:2)