Makerbot Cracks Down On 3D-Printable Gun Parts 528
Sparrowvsrevolution writes in with a story at Forbes about Makerbot deleting gun component blueprints on Thingiverse. "In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, the 3D-printing firm Makerbot has deleted a collection of blueprints for gun components from Thingiverse, its popular user-generated content website that hosts 3D-printable files. Though Thingiverse has long banned designs for weapons and their components in its terms of service, it rarely enforced the rule until the last few days, when the company's lawyer sent notices to users that their software models for gun parts were being purged from the site. Gun control advocates were especially concerned about the appearance of lower receivers for semi-automatic weapons that have appeared on Thingiverse. The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification. Makerbot's move to delete those files may have been inspired in part by a group calling itself Defense Distributed, which announced its intention to create an entirely 3D-printable gun in August and planned to potentially upload it to Thingiverse. Defense Distributed says it's not deterred by Makerbot's move and will host the plans on its own site."
One does not simply (Score:5, Insightful)
remove something from the internet.
Re:One does not simply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One does not simply (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One does not simply (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently you are a politician from your skill at taking two statements that don't contradict each other and trying to create an argument from them.
Don't be so vulgar, we don't use the term "politician" anymore. It's differently abled.
Re:One does not simply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One does not simply (Score:4, Funny)
I certainly won't be the first one to try out a 3d printed dil.... condom demonstrator. Can use say 'chafe'?
Re:One does not simply (Score:5, Insightful)
"To see how free information wants to be, just wait till other naughty objects show up in thingiverse."
It depends on what you mean by "naughty objects".
Apparently, they had an existing rule against uploading parts for weapons. I would not have a similar rule if I were in charge, but I am not. Since they are enforcing an existing rule, not just some knee-jerk over-reactive new rule in response to the shooting, I have a hard time objecting to their actions.
If it had been a new rule, however, I would have written a letter of protest to Makerbot. Policy decisions made as reactions to disaster have an extremely strong tendency to be bad decisions. That applies not just to corporate policies, but to law as well.
They'd be idiots not to (Score:5, Insightful)
However they feel about gun parts personally, being involved in distributing them could one day be a very bad thing. It's best to leave that to special-purpose sites.
so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
before this latest school shooting they really did not care. there has been an AR-15 receiver up on thingiverse for more than a year.
and there have been several school shootings in that time.
thingiverse even conducted a poll a few months back, the subject was whether or not users wanted to allow weapons on the site. i dont know the result of the poll, but the practical effect was nothing - they left those items up.
now all of a sudden they took them down.
nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).
Re: (Score:3)
And automobile deaths are on the rise while school shootings are getting more rare over the last 25 years.
Re: (Score:3)
nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).
I agree with you completely, assuming I understand where you're going with this, and I probably do. Our society has chosen to put cars everywhere, but a gun rack is now stigmatizing anywhere but bumfuck. And let's not forget that cars are major polluters (not least as they are made of steel) and have many downstream ecological (and other) consequences which could, were we to care, be calculated in miles per death though perhaps not very precisely. And yet, we don't, because the automobile manufacturers' lob
Re: (Score:3)
primary purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. THAT is why there is significantly different handling of vehicle deaths vs. gun deaths.
No, that's just not why, and no amount of imagining will make it so. I can see why you didn't log in, though; your opinion cannot stand scrutiny, so you don't want your name attached to it. The fact is that gun deaths receive more attention than car deaths because of the role each plays in our society. Today most people don't need a gun, but most people do need a car. But the fact that most people need a car is the result of a deliberately created situation; automobile companies were permitted by the federa
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Car accidents are rarely accidents
[Citation needed.]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as an "accidental shooting" either.
1. Negligent.
2. Intentional.
There can be an accidental discharge. but if you are following the rules for guns, which have been around since the first gun, then it doesn't turn into a "shooting".
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Gun Cleaning accidents. Step one of cleaning any weapon: unload it and make it safe.
2. Dropping firearms. Modern firearms do not do this, unless of course they have been modified... Negligently.
3. Ammo Mixup. How is that anything other than being negligent?
4. So dogs eat homework AND shoot their hunting partners. Firearms should be secured and made safe when you are not holding them.
5. Kids playing with guns. Probably the textbook definition of negligence.
Re: (Score:3)
So...when your house burns down and the gas in your car (which is in the garage) blows up...is that an automobile accident?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bad argument, but it never the less states a valid point. People (of which children are a subset) are killed in a variety of ways every day. Eliminate guns and that doesn't change. Take every gun and melt it down, pass a law to give people who create a gun the death penalty, and you're still going to have 2 things
1) People who die (once again for the ADD folks, of which children are a subset)
and
2) guns.
What will go away is law abiding citizens who own a gun leaving a world where the only people wh
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every other western nation has seriously controlled guns and their level of gun violence is dramatically lower than in the US. Sure, people still get murdered, that's not going to go away, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill 26 people in a short period of time with a gun than with a knife. Sure 5 year olds aren't going to put up much of a struggle if some monster comes in with a knife, but hey the adults can do something about that without having to fill our schools with more guns. This is the fundamental problem with guns, they are a significant force multiplier. So one dipshit who stole his mother's gun can't mow down an entire classroom, just as an example say, as a for instance. Not like lone dipshits ever kill dozens of people with guns, not like it hasn't happened at least 3 times this year.
And no, more guns is not the god damned solution. In order to safely have guns of any kind in a primary school class they'd have to be locked away where none of the kids can get at them(which means a real safe not one of those gun safes a 3 year old can open) which means they aren't available for anyone to use for self defense. Otherwise you're just going to have 5 year olds with guns, which is a bad god damned idea.
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:5, Informative)
Every other western nation has seriously controlled guns and their level of gun violence is dramatically lower than in the US.
Cite needed.
Oh wait, I've got some cites you can use:
Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats.
Source: More Guns Equal Less Violent Crime
by Professor John R. Lott, Jr.
University of Chicago Law School
This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel âoehave rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.â A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
Source: Gun Control: Myths and Realities
David Lampo, Cato Institute
According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4.
Source: Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship
By ADAM LIPTAK, The New York Times
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:4, Informative)
And to be fair: It doesn't make sense to compare murder rates by firearms between countries with varying levels of firearms control. A better comparison is overall murder rate. The U.S. doesn't even make it in the top 37 on a per-capita basis (Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com])
Notice how many "Western" states there are in this listing, all with gun control policies far stricter than the U.S. Apparently, they are killing each other with items other than guns.
Mod parent down! Horribly wrong! (Score:3)
The CDC (i.e., the US government) lists the US homicide rate as 55/million [cdc.gov], which would make it 6th on that list. Furthermore, that list seems to exclude just about all countries in North/South America and Africa, many of which have the highest murder rates in the world [wikipedia.org]. And why is the murder rate for Turkey listed as twice that of the highest country in the wikipedia list? This doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice list of US based gun supporting sources you have chosen to backup your statements.
I hardly think pro-gun-control groups will carry the statistics needed to prove my point.
That said, I did provide a couple of non-partisan links in followup posts (if you consider Wikipedia "non-partisan"). Also, you state that an American is 3.5 times more likely to be killed by someone (regardless of weapon). To be complete, you should find some countries that (1) have some form of gun control more strict tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cool. You do not like nor want guns in your life. I get it.
Remember though that you will not remove all guns from the bad guys.
Since bad guys will have them. I will have one to protect me and my family period.
Please do not make me a criminal so that you can feel better about your useless law.
Re: (Score:3)
but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill 26 people in a short period of time with a gun than with a knife.
But even though injuring 23 people with a knife [thesun.co.uk] is less bad than killing 26 with a gun, it's still bad enough.
Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, people still get murdered, that's not going to go away, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill 26 people in a short period of time with a gun than with a knife
...so, how many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? [wikipedia.org]
I mean, if we're talking just about reducing killer efficiency here, they why haven't we banned/controlled fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rent-a-trucks?
As another argument, consider that 9/11 involved box cutters and airplanes. The resulting outcry over that one gave us the TSA. Do you really want that agency (or one like it) having control over *anything* outside of an airport?
Re: (Score:3)
Saying you shouldn't make changes in area A because people will still die in area B is a bit disingenous. It's like saying we shouldn't bother having breaker boxes on the electrical system in a house because people will still die in car crashes.
The United States has on the order of 10,000 gun murders a year. No other Western country (that has strict gun control) gets even close to this murder rate (by any means, let alone firearms).
I've always found it extremely disingenous to focus on "gun crime" and "gun murders", by the way your number is wrong, when I'm pretty sure you're just as dead, raped or otherwise harmed if a gun wasn't involved in the least. The only logical reason to attempt to focus only on "gun crime" is to be able to cite misleading, at best, statistics to try and justify failed policies.
Honestly it isn't surprising that there may be a minor dip in "gun crime" relative for a given location after a total ban. What usual
Re: (Score:3)
A colleague of mine tried to print lego bricks with his 3d printer. They didn't mesh... He tried repeatedly, and often his pieces would separate into layers in the middle of the print job...
Publishing gun parts on thingyverse is more a political statement than a serious way of bringing guns into the hands of the people.
How Trendy (Score:2, Insightful)
How very trendy of them.
It seems that absolutely no one is above using this tragedy for getting attention for themselves and their own gain.
It's like they say; a politician should never fail to take advantage of a disaster.
Just like DRM has prevented piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't blame anyone for worrying about liabilities, but Pandora's Box is open, there's no closing it now. The specs for many, many firearms parts are readily available, and anyone who wants to take the time to translate those designs to 3D, is going to be able to print them, and distribute the designs. I'm waiting for someone to notice they can print 3D magazines, of any capacity they want. Yes, this is another opportunity to learn that all we do for good, can and will be perverted to bad. Are we willing to throw out the whole 3D printing movement as a result?
Maybe the argument that we all need to be having is: "Does prohibition of objects ever work?" Alcohol, Drugs, Guns, Porn, Books, etc?
Re: (Score:3)
The Slashdot readership probably isn't willing to do that, but broader society might be. Consider the pieces that are in place:
Censorship is bad (Score:2)
Good to know (Score:2)
3D printers, makers, and the like have become enormously popular among libertarian types. There was quite a lot of attention devoted to these projects at last year's PorcFest [porcfest.com] gathering (1000+ attendees) for one.
Good to know which groups to dis-invite and boycott this year.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how libertarians are all in favor of liberty, until you do something they don't like. Especially because, if this wasn't about guns, but rather, say, sex toys, the libertarians would be supporting their right to decide what content they host unquestionably.
If a libertarian group would dis-invite someone for exercising their rights and liberty, then that group is clearly NOT a libertarian group.
Why the lower receiver? (Score:2)
I don't know much about gun technology, so maybe somebody can explain why the lower receiver is the controlled part. Why not the barrel? It seems to me that the barrel is the heart and soul of a gun. You can make a gun with just a barrel and nothing else: it's called a cannon.
Furthermore, I would think the barrel would be the hardest part to manufacture, given the forces and temperatures it must endure, and having to be perfectly straight, and rifled. I would imagine that 3-D printed barrels are probabl
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Tax evasion (Score:4, Insightful)
The National Firearms Act (27 CFR, Part 479) is only about:
- fully automatic weapons
- short barreled rifes and shotguns
- silencers
- ``any other weapons'' / destructive devices
It does _not_ apply to typical pistols, rifles or shotguns.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf [atf.gov]
``c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845 (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.''
Please note that felons are exempt from paying this $200 ``tax'' --- it's imposed only on honest, law-abiding citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what would be the implications of building a railgun or coilgun? (I suspect building/firing a railgun would be difficult as a hobby pursuit, hence the coilgun option.) Looking at this more as an interesting piece of technology than a 2nd amendment exercise.
What if one called a coilgun a "launch device" instead of a "gun"? Kind of like the way a model rocket could be a weapon of launched in a different direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on one's perspective. I have no problem with the government demanding my neighbours demonstrate a minimum level of safety and competence in constructing and possessing devices which are capable of endangering me and my property.
I mean if you build a railgun with a mean kinetic energy above that of a rifle round, well hell, I'd really like to see a requirement to register the existence of such a thing and keep it properly stored and backstopped.
Re: (Score:2)
why should bars have bouncers? (Score:3)
thingiverse is a private organization, they can do whatever they want.
its called 'freedom'.
if you want to have a publicly funded 3d printing website that has AR-15 receivers and AK-47 bodies, you are 100% free to do so. . . you can even host it in a non-US country if you are worried about US firearms laws. I hear Somalia is very lenient towards the promulgation of AK-47s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
a mute point
That poor little point.
Now it has to learn sign language.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well, I think a gun barrel made of layers of resin will work fine - go ahead guys, be sure to test it yourselves first though.
Re:Defense (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace the first "don't" with "can't" and the statement is absolutely correct.
"If you can't have a gun you don't have liberty and you're not free."
That is a stupid sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is a stupid sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been a part of the USians culture since the beginning of our time. Our ability to own guns stems from our fight with England for independence. Yes, it is largely symbolic. No we can't really fight the government and win. But we have the option to do so, if we so choose. It would be going down in a blaze of glory. We would probably be utterly annihilated. But maybe not. I know a lot of soldiers. They wouldn't fire on the American people.
You're right that you have more "freedoms" than we do. If we really wanted those freedoms, though, we would fight for them, and get them. You have to remember that a lot of the voting population in the US consider themselves a part of the Christian right. It is changing, and in a few more decades, I think that we will see more and more places legalize the use of recreational drugs. I'm not sure on the legalization of prostitution, it'll take longer, but I think it might eventually happen. Maybe in the next century.
Re: (Score:3)
Every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered great loss and generally were "poor" by the end of the war. They truly sacrificed everything for freedom. Left Wing propaganda against "Rich White Men" is just that, propaganda.
Yes, it is true that those men failed to live up to their ideals, just like every other men, including Left Wing Loons. Take for instance, all those Rich Multicolored people Obama had to pass up for Cabinet positions because ... they didn't pay their taxes. Tim Geit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
"Assault weapons" is a nonsense term. It's an appeal to emotion, not reason. "Ban the scaaaary guns!" You want tighter gun controls? Fine by me. But banning "assault weapons" is just cheap theater by politicians so that they can appear to be doing something instead of doing their best to not even think about causes or symptoms.
Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defense (Score:4, Informative)
Problem is Assault weapons ARE already heavily controlled. You have to have a Class 3 license to buy assault rifles.
An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does not have select fire and is only a single shot semi automatic rifle.
Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.
here is one that will make you wig out. I can buy WITHOUT A LICENSE a fully automatic high rate of fire Gatling gun or machine gun. If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
I can also build and own a FLAME THROWER without a license.
Banning Semi automatic modular rifles will solve nothing. It was already proven that this does not work, it's why the previous ban was overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure how those two things are in conflict.
A gatling gun is not a machine gun if it is operated with a hand crank. Nor is a gatling gun exactly portable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, looked it up.. hand crank gatling guns are legal to own as they do not consitutue an automatic weapon. Putting a motor on one is the legal equivalent of converting a semiautomatic to automatic which, unless you have the license for it, is illegal. Buying one with a motor already attached it covered under the same laws that cover all machine guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.
To be fair, we do exactly that with SUVs.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Douche Canoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Dang Android phone....
I meant to say, SUV's are typically called "Douche Canoes" around here from how most of them are driven around others.
Re:Defense (Score:4, Informative)
> If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
Bullshit. Pre-86 machine guns are regulated under the NFA and require extensive paperwork with the ATF, extra background checks, waiting periods that run 6 mo to over a year, tax stamps, chief LEO sign-off, and other requirements in order to own.
what? (Score:5, Interesting)
All firearms which fire more than one bullet when the trigger is depressed can only be purchased by non law enforcement if they were manufactured prior to 1986 *and* the class 3 forms and background checks have been done. Doing the class 3 forms won't let you get a newer full auto, and just because its old doesn't mean you don't need the paperwork.
People complain about the amount of misinformation, but it would help if the laws weren't so complicated. Get rid of the NFA, suppressors are just hearing protection, full-autos are a novelty that would loose their appeal if they were easy to get, and short barrelled rifles and shotguns aren't significantly more deadly than any other firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
The AR-15 was designed for military use. What on earth do you think the military planned to do with it -- go deer hunting?
Re: (Score:3)
No it was not. The AR-15 is not a military weapon. Do you even know anything about that gun platform?
The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia may not be perfect, but I have a lot more faith in it than I do in you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
I love people like you, taking shit out of context. You know the bible tells you to go out and kill people in the name of god, why dont you use that?
The Jeep was first built as a military vehicle. Calling a Grand Cherokee a military vehicle is as ragingly stupid as calling an AR15 a "military weapon"
Re:Defense (Score:5, Informative)
And actually, yes, there are numerous hunting variants of AR-15s. Most come with 5 round mags, have no front sight, and have a different barrel and furniture and don't look at all "tactical"
Re: (Score:3)
You are mixing up two different weapons both based on a similar design. The original armalite AR-15 was a select fire weapon designed for a military competition. The Colt(and its derivatives) AR-15 is a a semi auto which means it cannot be an assault weapon.
One of the worlds most popular rifle designs the Mauser was designed for military use. Almost all of them are used for deer hunting these days. The military drives design for weapons due to its large budget. You would have trouble finding any kind of wea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Defense (Score:5, Informative)
"Assault weapon" is a term that was made up by the legislature, and is, very generally, a semi automatic firearm capable of accepting "high capacity magazines", with two or more (or was it more than two...) features from a list of: barrel shroud, bayonet mount, pistol grip, collapsing stock, etc. Cosmetic features. "Assault weapon" is a bullshit term, but it DOES mean something now, since several states have defined them, and the federal government did as well.. "Assault rifle", however, was a term coined in the military to refer to small caliber fully automatic rifles.
An AR-15 of certain configurations is considered, legally, an "assault weapon" by several states and under the previous "Assault Weapons Ban". However, identically functioning and almost identically appearing AR-15's are not. "Assault weapon" is a buzzword made up by the anti-gun legislators because it puts fear into people. I even wanted to ban them before I actually got into the politics of firearms and understood what they were actually talking about. You do not need a Class 3 for an "assault weapon".
An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is not fully automatic. Legitimate assault rifles (A term no one uses correctly, and a term that really has no use anyway) require a Class 3 stamp because they are fully automatic, and you can't purchase one that was manufactured after 1986, so the few that are out there are $20,000+ guns. But that's ok because poor people commit all the crime, so goes the anti-gun logic.
You are way wrong on the machine gun. NO fully automatic firearms may be purchased by a civilian that were made after 1986. Period. No amount of paperwork fixes that. The class 3 stamp for full auto machine guns is necessary to purchase a pre-1986 machine gun. You can not purchase one made after 1986 (short of some weird stuff with being an FFL "sample dealer" or whatever)
The important thing since all of this is so complicated... Is that Columbine happened during the federal assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban, and Connecticut still has an assault weapons ban. There was no detectable drop in violent or gun crime when the federal ban was put in place, and when it expired, violent crime has ever since been on the drop. Gun control has been tried. It does not work in the United States.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And it will cost you upwards of $100,000 to buy the weapon and the cost for ammunition is astronomical due to it's rate of fire. A lot of rich men own these weapons.
And if guns make people kill, why don't we see these rich guys mowing people down in malls?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hurr durr libertarians (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Except that it is a felony (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except that it is a felony (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. You are allowed to make the serialized part (the lower receiver, in the case of an AR-15) so long as it's not for sale. I've milled several out of aluminum for custom target & hunting rifles with the full blessing of local law enforcement and BATFE offices.
Re:Except that it is a felony (Score:4, Informative)
not exactly (Score:4, Informative)
You only have to have a manufacturing license if you wish to transfer the created firearm to another party. You can make any firearm you want as long as it does not fall under the NFA (can not be easily modified to fire more than one bullet per trigger pull, is not intentionally quieted, etc.), and you do not give it to anyone else. There is a large market in 80% complete receivers. You buy a piece of metal then bend and drill it a bit with a vice and drill press and you have an AK receiver. Order the rest online with no checks. You can also get almost finished aluminium blanks for AR receivers and mill them as you said.
You are correct in saying that most bad things people can do with a firearm are illegal. Making a firearm isn't a bad thing. Make as many as you like, just don't kill people with them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That isn't the case. The Federal government does not prohibit non-individuals from producing firearms for their personal use, and I'd posit that they can;t because they don't have the authority to do so. States can and some do. Others, such as Montana, have legislation specifically to protect individuals doing the above, even when those firearms are offered for sale inside the state of Montana and to other Montana residents.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal.
That makes it absolutely legal. You can build any weapon that your personal capabilities allaw, provided that is not a "destructive device" (aka: BFG) and only fires one bullet every time the trigger pulled. The lower *is* the firearm, as far as the ATF is concerned; so if you can mill it, you can build it, and it's legal.
Re:Except that it is a felony (Score:4, Informative)
For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution. The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following: (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
from the atf website:
For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). How
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.
Lets try this exact same question in another form.
Why is it a good idea to prescribe medications that increase the risk of violent behavior?
You see, it is believed that it is better to help large numbers of people even when it is at the expense of small numbers of people. If you need this in geek speak... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
The only real debate is where the line should be. Absolute stances such as yours pretend that there is no debate, and are born of emotion rather than reason.
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* smith their own sword.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* carve their own spear.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* sharpen their own rock.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* defend themselves from attack.
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Your stance is OK as long as you are also OK with the firearms homicide rate in the US being 30 times that of Australia and 60 times that of the UK.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate [wikipedia.org]
Something needs to be done about the cowboy culture in the US as it is killing you off like a third world nation. I won't say that tighter gun control is all of the solution, but you have to start admitting how fucked up you are before you can even start to solve the problem.
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to have a state so omnipresent and intrusive that it has to specifically "let" you do something before you are able to do it?
In the real world, technology and technological objects exist just as surely as the sun and moon do, and the legislature is no more able to uninvent the firearm than they are to forbid the sun from setting or the moon from rising.
Weapons exist and some people will have them regardless. Better for everyone to have them than for only criminals and thugs to have them.
Ultimately the problem is not the technology, it's human behaviour. It was the same problem when we had flintlocks and the same problem when we had swords and spears and the same problem when we were bashing each others heads in with rough rocks. That is the problem we need to solve and victim disarmament laws not only dont help they are actively counterproductive, because they increase the rewards and decrease the risks for those who indulge in the problem behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the most worrying things to many of us foreigners, though, is the culture that thinks they need a gun to defend against the tyrannical government. Which tyrannical government is that, then? I know that's the reason the Second Amendment was instituted in the first place, but I'm fairly sure the framers of the constitution never envisioned modern weaponry when they did it. The main argument they seem to offer is they need a gun to defend themselves from the government when they come to take their guns away. Like circular logic much?
You don't need a gun to defend yourselves BECAUSE the government might come take them away but if the government did that it would be a serious violation of the fundamental basis for this country. That basis being that it is run by the people. If you remove the only REAL method citizens have to defend themselves from their own government then the government just does whatever it wants. Currently I see no need for defending myself against my government. Other than having lost two of our civil rights alr