3D-Printed Guns Are Back, and This Time They Are Unstoppable (wired.co.uk) 513
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: A new network of 3D-printed gun advocates is growing in America -- and this time things are different. Unlike previous attempts to popularize 3D-printed guns, this operation is entirely decentralized. There's no headquarters, no trademarks, and no real leader. The people behind it reckon that this means they can't be stopped by governments. Known only by his online moniker, Ivan the Troll is the de facto spokesman of an underground wave of 3D-printing gunsmiths. Ivan says he knows of at least 100 people who are actively developing 3D-printed gun technology, and he claims there are thousands taking part in the network. This loose-knit community spans across the whole world.
They communicate across several digital platforms, including Signal, Twitter, IRC, and Discord. They critique each other's work, exchange 3D gun CAD files, offer advice, talk theory, and collaborate on future blueprints. These 3D-printed gun enthusiasts -- who share similar ideas and political viewpoints on gun control -- mostly found each other online via gun control subreddits and forums. Ivan is just one small part of this network. He says he is from Illinois, and is of "college age," but otherwise he remains mostly anonymous, to lie low. At the same time though, he's launched bombastic PR videos demonstrating the new 3D-printed gun parts he's created in his garage, including a Glock 17 handgun frame. Ivan's group says the legal challenges around Defence Distributed and the company's founder Cody Wilson are irrelevant. According to the report, the group is uploading their files individually on services such as Spee.ch, a media-hosting site underpinned by the LBRY blockchain, "and they aren't waiting for anyone to give them permission." It adds: "They've made their own 3D-printed gun designs, modified old ones, and are keeping all the Defence Distributed ones available for free too."
They communicate across several digital platforms, including Signal, Twitter, IRC, and Discord. They critique each other's work, exchange 3D gun CAD files, offer advice, talk theory, and collaborate on future blueprints. These 3D-printed gun enthusiasts -- who share similar ideas and political viewpoints on gun control -- mostly found each other online via gun control subreddits and forums. Ivan is just one small part of this network. He says he is from Illinois, and is of "college age," but otherwise he remains mostly anonymous, to lie low. At the same time though, he's launched bombastic PR videos demonstrating the new 3D-printed gun parts he's created in his garage, including a Glock 17 handgun frame. Ivan's group says the legal challenges around Defence Distributed and the company's founder Cody Wilson are irrelevant. According to the report, the group is uploading their files individually on services such as Spee.ch, a media-hosting site underpinned by the LBRY blockchain, "and they aren't waiting for anyone to give them permission." It adds: "They've made their own 3D-printed gun designs, modified old ones, and are keeping all the Defence Distributed ones available for free too."
Hope they blow up in their faces (Score:2, Funny)
literally and legally.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope it won't. The second amendment states unequivocally that you (the people) have the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you think those words don't mean much, then nether do the rest of the articles in the Constitution. Remember when the Feds banned alcohol? Next will be speech. Mark my words. Then, there won't be anywhere to bitch about not having a gun to defend your rights.
These gun smithing techniques will only get better and better anyways. These guys aren't stupid. They know m
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Next will be speech. Mark my words"
OK. I'm not very good at this though. I think "gun smithing" should be hyphenated.
9.5/10
Re:Hope they blow up in their faces (Score:5, Insightful)
Next will be speech
Too late. It is already happening and far too many people are okay with it, because they view they are safe. They might be right now, but eventually, they won't be.
Re: (Score:3)
Not buying what you're selling
"In December 2016, Bill Chumley, member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, introduced a bill..."
A bill that was introduced but not passed is meaningless in the context of this conversation. In other words, how can a bill that was never passed infringe on some one's free speech rights? Far more crazy and blatantly unconstitutional bills than this are attempt in states around the country every year.
"The law passed, but was shot down in court."
So the system worked as
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The assumption was that ALL adult males were trained in the use of firearms, which, among other things, made it much easier to maintain a SMALL peacetime standing Army (which we did till post-WW2)....
The actual arguments made to gain political support for the new Constitution just before it was signed was that training them all in the use of firearms would be ridiculous, stupid, and damaging to the nation; and that it would be difficult enough just to make sure they had guns; and so the militia should be maintained by the States.
This and several other publications argued heavily that a standing Army was a threat to liberty and should not be permitted to exist.
the Second still says "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed".
It actually says: "A well regulated Mili
Re: (Score:3)
Nice of you to expand on that, so lets have a look, shall we?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
What age are you? Are you going to give up your gun at 46 when you are no longer a part of this reserve militia? And women aren't allowed guns unless they in the national reserve, do you subscribe to that part also?
I'm 34 and male, so it applies. And why would I give up my gun at 46 or if I was a woman? Current jurisprudence would suggest the age and gender requirements can no longer be enforced, meaning It instead opens up to the whole adult population. Further, gun rights aren't exclusively restricted to the 2nd Amendment, nor is the right expressed in the 2nd tied to militia service (the militia is well regulated, not the right of the people).
More than that though. How can you, with a straight face, cite a federal law as to what constitutes a militia and then in the same breath ask who is doing the regulating?
Easy: the government can certainly define *a* militia. In fact, the f
Quick! (Score:2)
"unstoppable" (Score:2)
Well of course. There is nothing wrong with making 3d-printed guns, and no authority to "stop" the information flow in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharing ... designs ... is illegal?
On what planet? The same one where you'd defend crypto software, even though bad people can do bad things with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the gun equlvalent of a longbow ... (Score:3)
... with a good arrow? Anybody?
I don't get the fuss about 3D printing guns. You probably can build a viable gun with some scrap metal and a decent toolset - one that is much better than a 3D printed gun. What I don't get is the fuss about flimsy 3D printed guns. Isn't a longbow at least as powerful as most handguns? ... Just curious and hoping some gun/weapon enthusiast can provide some insight.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, a longbow has a range comparable to a rifle. Hitting power of a longbow is no better than a decent hunting rifle, and rather more powerful than any "assault weapon" ever made (an "assault weapon" is generally underpowered enough that they're not legal for deer hunting).
Note that most States have a bow season,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, a longbow has a range comparable to a rifle. Hitting power of a longbow is no better than a decent hunting rifle, and rather more powerful than any "assault weapon" ever made (an "assault weapon" is generally underpowered enough that they're not legal for deer hunting).
Note that most States have a bow season, and that there are archers who have killed moose, bison, and brown bears.
Mostly true, except that the range of a longbow is a fraction of the range of a rifle. The biggest difference is that if you are looking at someone holding a longbow and see them fire an arrow at you from 200yds, you can duck it. That's not going to happen with a bullet.
Re:What's the gun equlvalent of a longbow ... (Score:5, Funny)
The biggest difference is that if you are looking at someone holding a longbow and see them fire an arrow at you from 200yds, you can duck it.
I strongly advise to side-step it, instead. For reasons.
Re:What's the gun equlvalent of a longbow ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the attraction of bowed weapons?
Arrows go through bullet proof vests, so they are anti-police weapons. Practically, I don't think guns or arrows are particularly useful for drug dealers when fighting against the police, because if you fight against the police, you lose. They can bring far more firepower than you can hope to ever cache anywhere. So a crossbow is probably just a psychological weapon, it makes the drug dealer feel more confident, and the police a little more cautious.
Re:What's the gun equlvalent of a longbow ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a firearms hobbyist but until such time as printers can make a high tolerance chamber and rifled barrel that can take at least 18,000 PSI for thousands of firings... I've zero interest in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with some basic skills and a halfway decent workshop can make a durable, functioning gun faster than they could print one. And it's not illegal to make a gun in your home workshop, as long as you don't sell it.
Some steel pipe, wood, and a few metal bit are all that you need to make a perfectly functional, if somewhat crude firearm.
One of my WWII favorites: Trombone shotgun (Score:3)
Anyone with some basic skills and a halfway decent workshop can make a durable, functioning gun faster than they could print one....
Some steel pipe, wood, and a few metal bit are all that you need to make a perfectly functional, if somewhat crude firearm.
One of my favorites from the Phillipenes' resistance movement of WW II: The trombone shotgun. Iron plumbing pipe and fittings, friction tape, wood disk, nail.
Barrel/chamber: Pipe with inside diameter that matches the outside diameter of a shotgun shell.
Re: (Score:2)
... with a good arrow? Anybody?
I don't get the fuss about 3D printing guns. You probably can build a viable gun with some scrap metal and a decent toolset - one that is much better than a 3D printed gun. What I don't get is the fuss about flimsy 3D printed guns. Isn't a longbow at least as powerful as most handguns? ... Just curious and hoping some gun/weapon enthusiast can provide some insight.
Try standing a crowd waiting for the president to go by while you're holding a longbow, and you'll quickly see the advantage of having a gun that fits in your pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Longbows take years to become accurate. Crossbows are about as easy to use as a gun, but reload time is significant. You can empty a semi-automatic gun before you fire a 2nd bolt.
Arrows and bolts don't have barrel markings, but generally you say "guy killed by arrow/bolt and suspect had longbow/crossbow" and that gets a conviction.
The 3d printed guns are mainly a problem because they can't be tracked and the barrels can easily be melted down, preventing ballistic identification.
Of course, it won't take lo
Re: (Score:3)
There should be no fuss about 3D printed guns. They are worried about all plastic, no metal detection. Can't happen given you need a metal barrel. And poly bodies are common as it reduces weight.
Regarding bow type weapons.
You want an Air Bow, an arrow rifle. 3,000 PSI, 8 shots on an air charge, 450 Feet per Second.
https://www.amazon.com/Crosman... [amazon.com]
Far more powerful than bows or cross bows, and air powered, in a rifle format. Accurate to 100 yard range (try that with a stringed bow/crossbow).
Yep, it's on
Ivan the Troll (Score:3)
For a group without a leader, they sure are on-brand with their naming conventions.
Guns are a check on the power of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Gun control cost an estimated 50-60 million lives from genocide in the 20th century.
https://www.firearmsandliberty... [firearmsandliberty.com]
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/de... [jpfo.org]
https://mises.org/wire/brief-h... [mises.org]
https://www.dailyherald.com/ar... [dailyherald.com]
Too many times countries like Venezuela have banned guns only to follow these bans with suppression of the masses. Gun rights are about checking the power of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
the military has guns.
the militia is made up of every able bodied adult, my state constitution says so.
sooo....
Re:Guns are a check on the power of government (Score:4, Informative)
That's not true. The military is always under the control of the government unless the military seizes power. The founding fathers firmly grasped the need for an armed populace. Here's a page with a series of links with quotes from the founding fathers on guns.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.or... [buckeyefirearms.org]
One such quote clearly calls out exactly what they had in mind.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao made private firearms ownership illegal? Do you think Venezuela would still be in turmoil if its citizens had a 2nd amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Making private firearm ownership illegal makes it much easier to be a dictator. I would imagine that Venezuela would be a very different place right now if the government wasn't the only one with firearms.
Venezuela not a third world country until recently (Score:3)
It's culture. What you're taught when young. Belief in the rule of law. Subverting that law (bribery).
Nice speech - if we were talking about some war-torn country in the middle east or Africa.
But the country mentioned was Venezuela, with a long history of peace and prosperity and fairly good adherence to rule of law until a socialist government took over.
Now the government is literally running people over with military vehicles on video and there is fuck-all the populace can do because guns were long ago t
Re: (Score:3)
Oh my goodness the stupid hurts, it hurts!
Re:Guns are a check on the power of government (Score:4, Informative)
don't get it (Score:2)
Why would they do this in america? Can't you buy any gun you want, pistols, assault rifles, etc... cheaply and legally?
I think hes probably just a college person wanting to be famous and stir shit up. After reading the article, it seems he has no real reason for doing this besides wanting to do it. Some kind of insane "everyone should have a gun for safety" philosophy is the best he could come up with.
Re:don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they do this in america? Can't you buy any gun you want, pistols, assault rifles, etc... cheaply and legally?
No.
The Second Amendment says you can. The legislatures and lower courts mostly ignore it, while the Supreme Court mostly sidesteps the issue. (That HAS been changing a LITTLE bit lately. Big subject.)
US v. Miller (1939), upholding the gun control act of 1938: Supreme court said the 2nd only protected MILLITARY weapons, and nobody had showed them that a short-barreled shotgun was used by the military. (In fact it was: It's called a "trench gun" and was quite popular in WW I for clearing out the opposing army when they got into your trench. But Miller didn't show up to point this out, being dead at the time, so it didn't come to "judicial notice".)
This precedent was then used for a bunch of laws and rules banning civilians from having military, or "military style",
Assault rifles: Assault "rifle" or assault "weapon"?
Assault rifle: Short military select-fire (throw the switch and it's a burst-fire or full automatic {machine gun}) rifle, suitable for use in close quarters (especially: Popping up through a tank's hatch to spray the surroundings). Machine guns of all kinds (more than one bang per trigger pull) require paying a $200 tax per transfer, giving up a bunch of other rights, and are banned in many states. Also supply is limited to those that were built and registered before May of 1986, but the "Firearms Owner's Protection Act". aka trojan horse.
Assault weapon: Gun banner defined legal term. Amounts to "military looking ugly gun": a gun having any one or two (depending on the law) of a number of arbitrary, generally cosmetic, features that some legislature decided to ban with that iteration. (Examples: Bayonet lug, grenade launcher (you can't have the grenades, which are banned by other laws), pistol grips on a rifle, etc etc etc.
Pistols: Lots more controls than rifles or shotguns. Has to have a long barrel to be imported. If it has a detachable shoulder stock it becomes a "short barreled rifle" - a felony.
Shotguns: Heaven help you if it's too short. Or has a drum magazine. Or ...
Takes ammo over .50 cal.
Muffler? ("Silencer" is marketing hype: It's like a through-muffler for a hot rod: You need a hole through it so you can only reduce the sound somewhat, and it still sounds like a gun - except in silly movies,) Sorry, that's a felony, too, without that B.S. mostly-can't-get-it $200 tax stamp and stack of red tape. Use your big earmuffs or accept going deaf.
I could go on for pages.
Re: (Score:3)
Takes ammo over .50 cal.
I find this highly amusing, as it's legal in the UK for me to buy or make a firearm with up to a 2 inch bore.
So much for the second amendment.
It's time to for my 3D printing startup (Score:2)
I'm 3D printing bulletproof vests. Any investors?
Nobody Sees THIS coming (Score:3)
Don't think that 3D printing will be forever limited to plastics either. Industrial 3D printing is making metal parts that could not be made any other way for aircraft and rockets now and this technology, like virtually all technology, will become widely available in the future.
What was yesterday's magic, and today's advanced technology will be tomorrows normal.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.relativityspace.co... [relativityspace.com]
Still Can't 3D Print a Barrel (Score:2)
Anybody with some basic metalworking skill and a machine shop can build a real gun. They aren't that hard to make; relatively modern designs like the 1911A1 have been around for a CENTURY. And you don't need a machine shop; criminals in PRISONS can make guns.
And nobody can 3D print a barrel that will last for more than a few shots. There are not currently any plastics that can withstand the stress of a bullet passing through. The entire hysteria of "3D printed gunz!!!1" is a smokescreen. It isn't a p
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about power (Score:5, Informative)
If you want freedom you'll need to define it, create it, grab it and hold on to it.
Unfortunately, the world is full of people abusing this, creating their freedom at the cost of others freedom, or just denying freedom on some political or religious basis.
So in order to hold on to your freedom you'll need power, and as groups like government and criminals have all the the guns they want, you'll need your own or be literately outgunned. As government often use gun control laws to make sure they have a monopoly on guns, people needs new ways to get hold of guns in order to keep the balance.
Oh, and the usual comments about how peaceful countries with tough gun control laws are, it's a mirage. Yes, a lot fewer people are killed by guns but that is simply due to a lot fewer guns. If you instead calculate the number of gun death per gun, you'll get a very different picture.
In my country Denmark we have extremely restrictive gun laws and there are very few legal guns outside the police and military, and yet we have more than 100 gun deaths every year. There are less than a handful shot by legal guns (usually the police) and the rest are due to gangs shooting each other. The criminal world is full of guns, usually smuggled into the country. The really big factor here is that regular people don't have guns so when a criminal shows up with a gun, the criminal gets what he wants. Nobody shoots back and the criminals have a free-for-all. That is exactly why so few gets killed by guns - most of the time the gun doesn't even need to be loaded.
designs? (Score:3)
Designs are speech. You can check plans for making nuclear weapons out from the library, for pete's sake.
Now, manufacturing the weapons themselves? Yeah, governments can regulate that (modulo second amendment interpretations and practical limitations).
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the NRA/GOP may be against such practice because it takes business away from traditional manufacturers, which are large funders/supporters of the NRA. Money is usually the loudest voice in the room, not abstract principles.
Re: Ban guns (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Money is usually the loudest voice in the room, not abstract principles.
This has been all the NRA has been about since the 1970s, when they moved away from safety and training and got full time into the business of scaring people that "they be a' comin' fer yer guns!!!" And it worked, financially speaking.
They found they could make a LOT more money scaring people than teaching them to be responsible with firearms. I know, because I was a member for several years. I saw the change in the tone of the articles and the relentless demands for money to "fight the gun grabbers!!"
That was when I quit.
Gun sales skyrocketed during Obama's presidency because there was a constant drumbeat from the NRA about how Obama was going to confiscate all the guns "any day now".
Now, the truly hilarious part is that Donald Trump, the candidate the NRA backed to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, is the one who said “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Yes, he said that.
So yeah, in short, the NRA is completely unrecognizable from the organization that they were up until the early 1970s.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Informative)
This has been all the NRA has been about since the 1970s, when they moved away from safety and training and got full time into the business of scaring people that "they be a' comin' fer yer guns!!!" And it worked, financially speaking.
Bull.
As a 501(c)3 they couldn't even TALK about it before 1975 (when they split off a 501(c)4 - the NRA-ILA - to do lobbying.)
Before that the NRA was "the gun university" - training instructors and instructor trainers (for civilians, military, and police). Regulating the shooting sports. Designing ranges and rules for them. Doing research on gun tech. It was an organization of, and to create, gun experts.
Then for years the anti-gunners (both in office and in NGO lobbying groups) who wanted to pull the wool over the voter's eyes, did a preemptive strike on these experts, claiming they were the force behind their legislative failures, funded by the gun lobby (rather than their several million little-guy members), etc. They wanted to discredit them before they called the anti-gunners when they spouted some B.S.
Was a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. Some of the experts decided that having the stuff they were expert in banned was no fun, and ditto the members for whom guns were a hobby or perceived as a duty. So there the lobbying branch was formed, and after a member revolt or two the organization ended up doing a lot to protect gun ownership.
But it's always been a bit ambivalent about it - which is why other, more focussed, pro-gun-ownership organizations have formed.
Such as the Second Amendment Foundation - which was the main funder and organizer behind what became DC v Heller (2008), the successful challenge to the D.C. gun laws that broke the Supreme Court's long silence. (NRA wanted to avoid the battle, as the supreme's were 5-4 at the time so they saw it as a risk.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it could be like microsoft letting hijacked copies of windows flow freely back then for years just to keep a captive potential clientele for the future.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually the NRA/GOP may be against such practice because it takes business away from traditional manufacturers, which are minor funders/supporters of the NRA.
Fixed that for you. Check out the NRA's published financials. Nearly all of their funding comes from individual donations and membership dues. Dues and individual contributions have fallen the last couple of years, because Trump is in office and people feel like guns are safe. Election of a Democratic president will push dues and contributions back up, especially if Democrats also control Congress.
It's worth noting that gun manufacturers also like Democrats to be in power, at least from a revenue/profit perspective. Gun control advocates do far more to boost gun sales than the NRA does, indeed the NRA's political successes tend to depress gun sales.
Disclaimer: I'm an NRA-certified firearms instructor and a life member, because membership is required to maintain certification. I also despise the tactics of the NRA's political arm, though I largely agree with their aims. If there were a way to be a member only of the training arm of the NRA, I'd do that and make my gun-related political donations to GOA and JPFO.
I should also note that I don't in any way support Donald Trump. He's an idiot, a liar, a criminal, and I suspect he's mentally ill. His whole business career was based on the principle of the Big Lie, and it deeply saddens and discourages me that enough of the American people believe his lies to put him in office and terrorize the GOP into keeping him there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Guns aren't cool. You know what's cool? Freedom. Freedom is cool. But freedom isn't free. Without the means to protect it, someone will come and take it away. Remember that when you consider the repercussions.
The most restrictive places in America have the most gun deaths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading half of the first line, I could have sworn you were quoting Team America: World Police. Actually, I'm still not sure you weren't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't make it wrong.
Freedom is cool, the alternative is a dystopian future where the elites tell you what you need to know, and how to think about it. See Facebook, Twitter, Youtube for examples of group think run amok. People being banned for ... words. Not even scary words, just words that aren't acceptable to the group thinkers.
But there are quite a few people who are quite okay with their group think, and don't realize that eventually, their think won't be good enough for the group.
1984 was a cau
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sort this by rate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>"You're talking about absolute numbers rather than rates (and rate is all that matters)."
Actually, lots of things matter. But you are correct that rates are more important than numbers.
>"Sort this by rate: [wikipedia]"
Indeed. But just make sure you use the correct table. Any data that is just "gun deaths" is pretty meaningless. What really matters is gun *murders*. Start by removing suicides and self-defense. Fortunately they have that table further down the page.
Unsurprisingly, the top of the
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Informative)
The most restrictive places in America have the most gun deaths.
The most gun restrictive nations in the world have the fewest gun deaths. I have actual statistics to back up my claim [wikipedia.org] so what do you have?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is basic statistics like that are complete bullshit. It's trivial to state a place with few guns have few gun deaths and it's completely obvious it's true. A place with zero guns would have no gun deaths. One person with 80 guns never kills someone vs 1 disgruntled employee shooting 81 people and now you have every gun costs a life. Basic stats are trivial to abuse to show whatever you want them to show and never reflect real life.
What's the normalized chance of a random person getting shot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the worst non-firearm-related crime.
Get a fucking clue.
GP provided evidence for their claim. Want to return the favour? Or shall we just trust that you have one or possibly more "fucking clue(s)"
Evidence of those claim (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
It has been whittled away ever since by people like you and not stopped because things were going pretty well.
That's exactly my point: an armed populous only secures against an immediate and extremely egregious loss of freedom. It doesn't stop the frog from being boiled slowly (yeah, I'm aware the analogy is an urban legend - frogs don't actually allow themselves to be slowly boiled to death).
Let's go out on a limb and imagine Trump somehow appointed himself ruler for life. Chances are, most of the gun owners in this county still wouldn't see it as being worth risking their lives over (plus, for a lot of them, it's their side holding power). And for those of us who don't own guns, well, living under a totalitarian regime still beats a civil war, so all hail our glorious leader, I suppose.
There's plenty of legitimate reasons (hunting, sport, personal defense) to own guns, but preserving our freedom isn't one of them. I'm sorry to whoever the butthurt person was who modded my original post down, but an informed vote makes the ballot box more powerful at protecting freedom than the ammo box.
Re:What about bullets? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But it isn't actually MAKING your own ammunition.
Buy or collect used shells.
Buy primers.
Buy bullets.
Buy appropriate smokeless powder and a device to measure it accurately.
Assemble all parts using the tools that you also had to buy specifically for that task.
A real story would be 3D printing of ammunition. That would be interesting. I would subscribe to that newsletter just because.
Re: What about bullets? (Score:4, Funny)
In my day we mined our own ore, smelted them into casings, ground our animal urine into gunpowder and stole our children's toy soldiers to cast into bullets.
Filthy casuals.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Yup (Score:2)
Listening to a typical liberal trying to talk seriously about the gun problem is like listening to a typical conservative talk about Saddam Hussei
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure ammo restrictions of various sorts have already been tried, and the Supremes gave a resounding "NO" to the notion that restricting ammo isn't a restriction on the Second.
Even ignoring th
Re: (Score:2)
the Supremes gave a resounding "NO" to the notion that restricting ammo isn't a restriction on the Second.
I'm not totally sure I'm parsing that sentence correctly, but I wasn't talking about banning, I was talking about identifying/tracking. And there are indeed plenty of laws regarding ammunition already on the books. One interestingcase was he ban of teflon bullets...it's a ban that's still in effect in several states. It's all because someone once claimed, untruthfully, that they were armor piercing (and thus were "cop killers".) In actuality, they only reduce feed errors and reduce ricochets, but this does
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not knowledgeable enough as to why rifle carts are metal... I know that they do carry off some of the heat which can be really important with su
Re: (Score:2)
And even with shotgun shells, the base is still metal, well, because it's necessary for strength. Search "case head failure" to see that even brass cartridges can fail and cause serious
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't against guns. You aren't even against lunatics having them. You're all for the kind of lunatics having them that run our country, states, cities.
The greatest danger to a citizen isn't another citizen, it is the well armed state in the hands of a lunatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps, we can mitigate the harm from any lunatic who wants one being able to 3D print himself a gun by monitoring and control of access to ammunition."
You do remember that in the Civil War they had ammo where bullet and gunpowder were in a piece of paper, plastic cases work very well for ne-time use, just like the paper ones.
You can also fire granite bullets if you want to avoid metal detection.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrosive propellants aren't particularly difficult to make, and given the ease of construction of 3d printed guns longevity isn't exactly a significant concern.
Re:What about bullets? (Score:5, Informative)
Firearm murder rates, from highest to lowest:
1 Louisiana
2 Missouri
3 Nevada
4 Maryland
5 Arkansas
6 Alaska
7 Alabama
8 Mississippi
9 Illinois
10 South Carolina
Louisiana actually has a much higher homicide by firearm rate than any other state (almost three times that of California!), but from a quick Google, it looks like it has extremely lax firearm restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Louisiana actually has a much higher homicide by firearm rate than any other state (almost three times that of California!), but from a quick Google, it looks like it has extremely lax firearm restrictions."
Yes, it does, but this is kinda ignoring that the gun ownership rate is twice that of #2 Missouri, and #4 Maryland. And Maryland has vastly draconian gun control, as does DC right next to it. So does Illinois... especially in Chicago, which has a very high gun murder rate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure what your point is - more murders happen in cities? Murders happen because of Democrats? I was talking about gun control laws, and it seems that New Orleans (as a part of Lousiana) allows concealed carry for basically all adults and allows open carry almost everywhere.
You're moving the goalposts, but it's not clear where.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That seems to be objectively not true. Using data from this website [usconcealedcarry.com], and a map of gun violence by The Daily Beast [thedailybeast.com], we find that the states that have the highest gun death rates - Louisiana, Nevada, Nevada, Arkansas, and Alabama all have concealed or open carry permit rates over 4% - with the last two at 7% and 16%, respectively, and with the notable exceptions of Mississippi and Alaska, which have gun death rates of around 1.5% each. So that would imply that the parts of the country with the most deaths by
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about bullets? (Score:5, Informative)
You could sort this by rate per 100,000 [wikipedia.org] to find out just how wrong.
All places that have restrictions on gun ownership have fewer deaths from guns than the violent hell-holes at the top of that list.
Re:What about bullets? (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Fortunately, someone has linked to the Wikipedia article that proves you wrong. You could sort this by rate per 100,000 [wikipedia.org] to find out just how wrong. All places that have restrictions on gun ownership have fewer deaths from guns than the violent hell-holes at the top of that list."
Sorry, but that data proves what you just said is wrong. Maryland has some of the strictest gun control laws AND low gun ownership and is still #4. And if you include DC- they become #1, and they, too, have extreme gun control. The other thing the data doesn't show at all is how much crime and murder is PREVENTED by legal gun ownership- which is actually quite huge.
And please don't say "gun deaths" or "deaths from guns" or "gun violence." Those terms are used only by those pushing gun control. The statistics that matter should be "gun murders" because that is what you should fear (suicides aren't inflicted on others and most will occur regardless, and self-defense is the major GOOD reason for having the ability to protect yourself and creates deterrence). Fortunately that is the data we are talking about (it is what you quoted and is available on that Wikipedia page, further down).
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they will get better over time, as designs are tweaked based on trial and error to fit 3D printers' tradeoffs.
Give it a couple of years (Score:2)
Ok, If you can afford a commercial 3D printer (desktop metal or some other printer at that level of quality), I expect you could make a disposable gun pretty fast. And I mean disposable - You show up, the gun gets used for the day and thrown away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think 3d printed guns suck, and will stay that way; you haven't been paying attention to everything technology touches in the last 150 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US (the biggest gun market) only the AR-15 LOWER is considered a gun, requires registration, and a serial number. (See link if you don't know what a lower is)
EVERYTHING else is considered an accessory and can be bought by anyone with money. No background checks, no waiting periods, nothing.
3D printed AR-15's are just the lower printed. Everything else is normal parts. Some printed lowers have fired 1,000+ rounds no issue.
https://www.cheaperthandirt.co... [cheaperthandirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not all 3D guns are made from plastic. You can "print" metal these days as well although it's still fragile. But if you don't experiment, you won't know how to improve the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Ammunition also falls under the second amendment. Easy enough to make, I know several people that make bullets in their garage for various reasons, primarily to avoid government controls and secondary because government rationing has made it impossible to buy some of these bullets easy and cheap, some of them costs upward of $1/round and when your guns can shoot a few dozen in a minute, the cost adds up quick.
Listen to the republican supreme court judge (Score:2)
here; find out yourself:
https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
Re:It is their right and it is constitutional. (Score:5, Informative)
You would be wrong. For two centuries the Supreme Court had upheld the individual right. The Heller case was simply continuation of this. The one case most often brought up by anti-gun groups to support the lie you repeated, and I forget the citation, was they allowed the banning of sawed off shotguns because it had no military use (they were wrong about that detail). Let that sink in. They allowed a banning firearm because it had no military use. That says that we do have the right to possess military grade firearms.
A side note, the defendant died before the case reached the Supreme Court and his lawyer didn't bother to show up.
Re: (Score:3)
It's US v. MIller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)
The tl;dr from the decision:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel