State Officials Ask Trump Administration To Pull 3D-Printed Gun Files Offline (theverge.com) 326
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Two dozen state attorneys general are asking the Trump administration to crack down on Defense Distributed's Defcad site for selling 3D-printed gun files. In a letter sent today, they urged the Justice Department and State Department to enforce rules against exporting weapons and making undetectable firearms. "If the federal government fails to act, these files will be distributed widely with potentially grave consequences for our national and domestic security," warns the letter. Attorneys general argue that Defcad is violating export control regulations and the Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans manufacturing, owning, and selling guns that don't trigger metal detectors. Anyone who downloads files could "automatically manufacture functional weapons that cannot be detected by a standard metal detector and, furthermore, are untraceable because they lack serial numbers," says the letter. "Continued dissemination of these files will increase the risk of terrorist attacks and gun violence across the United States." Defcad has well-established problems with ITAR, but the letter doesn't explain how it violates the Undetectable Firearms Act beyond asserting that files "enable the automatic manufacture of functional plastic weapons."
If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alao misleading. I can build a gun in plumbing dep (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also quite misleading. The files are little more than a novelty; they aren't a reasonable way to acquire a weapon.
First, these aren't "undetectable plastic guns". The chamber, barrel and barrel, at least, needs to be steel in order for it to be either a) safe for the user or b) reusable. All the plans on the site I steel parts, save one. How many people are going to spend that many hours to fire one poorly-aimed shot?
Without even more steel parts, you end up with something similar to a civil war era musket - fire once, miss, then spend a few minutes reloading.
If you wanted to make a single-shot gun like that, you can do it in a few minutes in the plumbing department of your local home center. You need a water pipe, a cap for the pipe, and a nail. He's over to aisle 12 for a hand drill to drill the hole. You'll be done before 3D printer boy has his printer warmed up and calibrated.
If you want a single-use all plastic one you'll need to use hdpe pipe also known as PE. That's because PVC schedule 80 can shatter. Yeah I've made these - in my case 3" caliber guns to shoot fireworks 300' in the air, but it's the same principle.
For extra fun, you can make your own gunpowder over in garden supply section. I've done that too.
Re:Alao misleading. I can build a gun in plumbing (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, are you growing exploding flowers in your garden?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The chamber, barrel and barrel, at least, needs to be steel in order for it to be either a) safe for the user or b) reusable
Why place arbitrary restrictions on your argument? A gun ceases being a gun simply because it can only be fired once?
Re: (Score:3)
They are probably less worried about someone printing a practical gun today and more worried about where this is heading. Metal 3D printers already exist and will soon be getting popular with consumers.
2D scanners and printers and photo editing packages already have code in them to stop you using them for money forgery. Try scanning a bank note and opening the resultant image in Photoshop. Colour laser printers put almost invisible yellow dots on your print outs so they can be tracked back to you too.
And ev
Re:Alao misleading. I can build a gun in plumbing (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if the US decides that printing guns is legal
Except making your own gun is legal already, and has never been illegal. The only legal concern is avoiding NFA laws (ie, machine guns, short barrel rifles, etc)
The hoplophobes are just freaking out because "oooh, computers and 3d printing".
And yes, there are many more effective ways to get more effective firearms for those who are intent on doing bad things than firing up a 3d printer and running off a few copies of a proof-of-concept....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be suggesting that an AR-15 is more deadly than a shotgun. Bad news - it's not. An AR-15 shoots a very light bullet at reasonably high speed. My 12 gauge shoots a VERY heavy bullet (assuming it's load
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both... it is an issue for BOTH amendments.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any activity that encroaches upon either of these is a violation of them.
The moment you allow government to create laws that defeat constitutionally declared rights is the same moment you just said the entire constitution is worthless. The Constitution is a document that outlines what power the government has and what power it does not have. When it is allowed to take power it does not have, it has become the same as a cheating spouse and the spouse that has been cheated upon has the right to void that contract. There is a reason why people are supposed to get off scott free when the government denies someone their rights. It's no longer about guilty or innocent... its about government literally abdicating their authority and losing the power to continue prosecution, search, and or seizure of said persons or things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Second Amendment could not be more clear, No where does the Constitution or its Amendments say "unless we're scared". No where "unless it's made of plastic". The fact that courts have ruled wrongly on this is not an excuse; it's a reason to replace judges until the clear language of the constitution once again applies.
The Constitution exists to restrict the power of our government over us. Of course that government will try to weasel out of those restrictions at every chance. Governments what more
Re: (Score:2)
The Second Amendment could not be more clear,
The 2nd Amendment is not clear. The inappropriate use of a comma would upset many middle school English teachers.
Sawed-off shotguns are banned because they are not militia weapons, and the courts have upheld that ban. Plastic guns aren't militia weapons either, so a ban is likely to be upheld there as well.
Banning these 3D weapons is silly nonetheless because they are much more likely to result in an "own goal" than harm to an innocent person.
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2nd Amendment is not clear. The inappropriate use of a comma would upset many middle school English teachers.
The comma is all-important, as it separates the actual rule from the preface explaining why the Founding Fathers thought this was important. You would only call that comma "inappropriate" if you were deliberately trying to misconstrue the rule to only apply to militias.
The rule limiting the power of the government:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
There's no "unless" there. Shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. There's also the preface:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Which makes it clear this isn't just about self-defense, or protecting one's home (these rights were already entrenched in British common law and hardly needed to be written here), it's talking about the right to own military weaponry, including cannon, because you also need to form a militia, not just defend your home. And, yes, most cannon was privately owned up until the 20th century, and donated to any war effort as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you consider current restrictions on baring arms to be unconstitutional?
There are restrictions on what kinds of arms you can own, they all went through the supreme court so are considered legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't account for restrictions on things like WMD though, does it? I mean worrying that your neighbour might have a mental health crisis and murder you with a gun is one thing, but I think even most 1A advocates would be alarmed if their neighbour started manufacturing anthrax or building a small tactical nuclear weapon.
I'm trying to understand if you place any limits on it at all, e.g. would owning a ground to air missile launcher and living near an airport be protected or is there some point in-bet
Re: (Score:3)
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Which makes it clear this isn't just about self-defense, or protecting one's home (these rights were already entrenched in British common law and hardly needed to be written here), it's talking about the right to own military weaponry, including cannon, because you also need to form a militia, not just defend your home. And, yes, most cannon was privately owned up until the 20th century, and donated to any war effort as needed.
And here you go entirely off the rails and spew unsupported and untrue notions. Precisely none of what you are misinterpreting here, typical of NRA propaganda, is remotely true.
The 2nd Amendment does not concern military, such as the US Army, in the slightest bit. Constitutional Militia [cornell.edu] is not US military, and entirely unrelated and separate from the US military. The Constitution is not internally redundant, and the raising of an army is discussed, for instance, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.
The F
Re: (Score:3)
The beauty of the Amendment process is that even if an overwhelming majority of people and politicians want to take away an American freedom... it still can't happen unless those people and politicians are evenly distributed throughout the country.
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Miller was poorly decided (and worse cited) - there was literally no representation for the defense at court. Short barreled shotguns were in fact used in the military, which the prosecution deliberately didn't mention. The court didn't say they weren't military weapons, they said that no facts were presented indicating they were - "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment". Finally, if military use is the deciding factory, we should all be able to have automatic rifles and (hand held) rocket launchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what they want you to think. Fact is, it provides only specific, limited powers to the government. It is prescriptive, not restrictive. All others powers belong to the states and the people. 2A or no, the Constitution simply doesn't give the Feds any power with which they can control firearms.
Re: (Score:3)
It's 100% legal to make your own weapons as long as you are legally allowed to buy one... So why should it be frowned upon to make a crappy 3d printed gun when you can just make a good metal one with a little machining? Worst case, the 3d printed guns blow up in some idiots face and problem solved if you are looking for the death of the person making the gun. Only way to make a good worthwhile gun with 3d printing would be metal printing with laser sintering or something, and it's waaay cheaper just to b
Re: (Score:2)
I own a CNC mill and lathe. I also own a 3D printer.
I spent hundreds of hours learning how to use the mill and lathe. Most "real" machinists would consider me an intermediate learner. I may be able to make a lower receiver. No way could I make a rifled barrel.
Learning to make parts on the 3D printer took about 30 seconds. Just push the button.
Comparing machining to 3D-printing is silly. The skillsets are worlds apart.
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
And you can make a zip gun with no machining experience. No need to make a barrel as you can buy that, same and most parts of a gun. Only the receiver has a serial, that's the part you make. Buying 80% receivers and you can finish one with a dremel if careful, don't even need a cnc to make it perfect. But again, all of this is legal for most Americans, so it's moot.
Re: (Score:3)
its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.
Exactly. We can cue all the arguments that had been thrown around when export of encryption was banned.
E.g. if you take the forbidden file, XOR it will a random file (1) of the same length, you get another file (2) that is indistinguishable from random. Now you post file (1) and (2) to two separate sites. Which site is breaking the law?
E.g. If the file can be compressed to just three (or ten, or twenty) words, how are you going to stop people from memorizing it and saying it out loud everywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
E.g. If the file can be compressed to just three (or ten, or twenty) words, how are you going to stop people from memorizing it and saying it out loud everywhere?
Or encoded within some popular images? Depending on the complexity of the files needed the required data could be hidden into the noise of an image, or a series of images. Perhaps hide it in a sound file, video, an expansion pack for a game, whatever that is going to be an inherently large file and tolerant of some noise or errors. Put the wanted data in the file and spread it around as best you can to people, people that may or may not know the files contains plans for 3D printable objects and how to ex
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
Yes, indeed! Even the UN agrees:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.
Yeah, it's not the government's job to regulate things which could potentially explode in the user's face and kill them. /s
Re: (Score:3)
its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.
Nothing about this is related to any Amendment. Not the 1st or the 2nd. This is nothing more than a common sense litmus test, with those asking confirming just how much they lack.
In a nutshell, two dozen state officials want to remove information already widely disseminated on the internet. In other words, the actual request here, is to put the genie back in the bottle.
Once you realize just how pointless and impossible that request really is, "fascist" arguments become as irrelevant as the idiots asking
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's the first time I've seen a person respond to his own +5 insightful post and subsequently get modded 0 Troll. Congrats.
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:4, Interesting)
Homicide rates don't decrease when you ban guns.
There are two big problems with this statement.
1. It is wrong. Most homicides are impulsive and guns, especially handguns, are easy to use impulsively. The preponderance of the evidence is that gun restrictions lead to fewer homicides. The impact on other crimes is more ambiguous.
2. You are shifting the debate from one about a fundamental human right to self-defence, to a utilitarian argument about costs and benefits. This is playing directly into the hands of authoritarians. A gun ban is not justified on grounds of "safety" any more than censorship is justified on the basis of creating a more orderly society. Freedom is not about safety and order.
Re: (Score:2)
The preponderance of the evidence is that gun restrictions lead to more homicides and more violent crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read carefully
The whole thing
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2... [thepolemicist.net]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy the notion that guns greatly increase the number of violent incidents, but those guns do exacerbate the vi
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Complete hogwash.
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
lolwut
You're trolling again, right?
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
Just not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is wrong. Most homicides are impulsive and guns, especially handguns, are easy to use impulsively. The preponderance of the evidence is that gun restrictions lead to fewer homicides. The impact on other crimes is more ambiguous.
I've never had much luck finding useful sources that established this.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and they are. But a knife, pipe, or hammer is more likely to result in an injury rather than a homicide.
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, and they are. But a knife, pipe, or hammer is more likely to result in an injury rather than a homicide.
More likely? According to FBI statistics, four times as many people are killed with knives every year when compared to homicides by rifle. It's bad enough when we blatantly ignore the mental health problem in this tired discussion (65% of all gun deaths are by suicide), but we certainly don't need to be adding fuel to that delusional fire by assuming knives aren't tools that homicidal maniacs use quite often.
Re: (Score:3)
A better comparison is one which excludes all (accidental, self-inflicted, military, gang on gang, police, and 'attempted' actions) AND includes ALL firearms.
Not because that number supports my agenda... just because that is the number you'd be looking at if trying to find the real data with a healthy attempt at philosophical charity and accounting for your own bias instead of just blatantly phacking statistics that support your argument. Shame on all of you. What good to win the argument if you sold everyo
Re: (Score:3)
"Knives are just as deadly as many firearms"
That is the inaccurate statistic and the point you danced around. You are comparing all varieties of knife (from butter to machete and likely sword) to just one flavor of firearm.
Women kill more people than six toed little men with eyepatches and therefore women are just as deadly as men. That is the implication here. You are trying to exclude other firearms such as hand guns just the same as they are trying to lump suicides into their "violence."
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed.
I recall seeing people making a statistical analysis on gun control laws and violent crime which show the effectiveness on gun control to lower crimes to be very weak at best, and encourage violent crime at worst. I did such an analysis myself for a university statistics course and gun control is not helpful in lowering homicide rates.
I just tried to find one of these studies on the internet but the results are flooded with noise of people making the correlation on how gun control lowers gun related crimes. No shit, Sherlock. Of course reducing the prevalence of gun ownership lowers deaths from shooting but that's not what we should be looking for. We should be looking for lowering the rates of criminal homicide, regardless of the weapon used.
This brings another flaw in most of these so called "studies", they do not separate criminal homicide with justified homicide from self defense. I don't care if some potential rapist met his early demise because the victim defended herself. I would much rather the woman didn't have to be traumatized this way but considering the more likely outcomes from a disarmed public I consider this the lesser of two evils.
Here's why I consider the correlation on gun laws reducing crime to be complete and utter bullshit, the people that do these studies fail over and over again to do an honest analysis. They neglect to consider deaths and injury from non-firearm weapons or unarmed criminals. They include self defense and suicide in the category of "gun violence". And most of all it took an analysis from an undergrad statistics course using their own data to show this is all bullshit. I'm looking at you, Brady Campaign.
I'm going to need a citation on your claims. I tried to find my own citation but there's so much bullshit out there that it's hard to find, and I failed to do my own backups on my homework from my statistics course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
Why go through all of that when you can buy a can of nitrogen and a trash bag? The knot there is easy; basically if you can tie your shoes you can tie the bag. It's almost impossible to screw up, and if something goes wrong, it's easy to correct.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The available of guns has no measurable effect on suicide rates. In Japan it is almost impossible to possess a firearm, yet they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Other countries with firearms readily available have low suicide rates. The US falls about in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
Practically, I think owning RPGs would be comparatively fine. They're a whole lot less dangerous than semi-automatic handguns and long guns in terms of their killing ability against civilians.
Pretty much the only party who's at higher risk is the wielder. If you forget safety, or go full Arab in using them (refers to standard practice in Arab armies when you get your issue RPG-7, you remove the plastic safety cap as the first thing you do), then you stumble and fall, the charge will usually not be strong en
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
The 2nd Amendment was created in the era of muskets, with the intention to protect the populace from an over-reaching government.
They had a wee bit more than just muskets. Ever hear of privateers? Not too many private citizens running around with their own battleships these days ...
If a civil war broke out, you'd have civilians using handguns and rifles against tanks and drones.
Well that would be pretty dumb. Why not use IEDs like in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are you advocating for allowing citizens to have RPGs since safety is not a concern?
In the USA citizens can already possess RPGs with the right licensing, and assuming they're not banned under state/local law. There is no federal prohibition on them.
You can also own cannons and tanks if you like. Armed aircraft, however, are verboten.
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
USA is largely a contiguous continent (a couple of minor exceptions) - a battleship isn't likely to do much against the government.
Nonsense. Interdiction of imports would have a significant impact on the government. Sink a few oil tankers and cargo ships, see how things go.
Moreover you seem to be under the assumption that battleships can only be used against other ships. Historically they've played a significant role in supporting coastal assaults. Washington DC happens to be a coastal city - lobbing a few shells at the white house from naval cannons might shake up the government a little.
IEDs don't work against drones.
Well, I wasn't suggesting that, but actuall
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm pretty sure there's already a federal law against distributing instructions to make bombs.
And I'm fairly certain you're wrong. Can you provide evidence of such a law?
Subsection 842(p) of Title 18.
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2)
That wasn't a privately owned tank; the guy was a national guard soldier who stole it from the local depot. But yeah that's the only incident which comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd Amendment was created in the era of muskets, with the intention to protect the populace from an over-reaching government. If a civil war broke out, you'd have civilians using handguns and rifles against tanks and drones. Are you advocating for allowing citizens to have RPGs since safety is not a concern?
Every child should have three nuclear missiles.
1:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Homicide rates don't decrease when you ban guns.
Suicides rates do.
About 60% of people who die from a gun are dead because they killed themselves.
That's an implicit, though rarely discussed, part of the pro-gun argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, you are correct that the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Even when you consider gun homicides specifically, the stats are skewed heavily towards the most impoverished
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Suicide by firearm may diminish, but those who seek to kill themselves just find another way. Look at Japan and Korea, both are very strict when it comes to firearms but
Re: (Score:2)
If guns kill people, pencils fail tests
A gun's primary purpose is to kill people. For pencils, killing people is only secondary. That's the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
One could also say "A gun's primary purpose is to defend people"
Also, "A pencils primary purpose is to organize a mob"
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:3)
A gun's primary purpose is to hurl a chunk of metal at whatever it is pointed at. It is the person holding the gun who is responsible for pointing it at a person.
Re:If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I see this continuous strand carbon fiber filiment being advertised, looks strong as hell. Just for giggles I'm gonna youtube to see if anyone is printing guns with the stuff yet.
AR-15 lower https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
AK-47 lower https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Granted the most important part probably wasn't 3d printed (the barrel) but it's still kind of neat to see just how far they can get with it. Still not with banning these from the net, it takes too much patience and time for a kid t
Re: (Score:2)
how is that even impressive? I can make a lower and upper out of hardwood.
Re: (Score:2)
You see prototypes here and there but I have yet to see a practical accessible 3d gun yet.
Define practically accessible. Most 3D printed guns will achieve their goal of firing one or two rounds even printed from a simple $300 consumer printer to say nothing of some higher end ones.
If you're talking about the reliability of a well manufactured Colt then you're not going to get that without a metal powder bed fusion printer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Re: If this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue... (Score:2, Funny)
Whoever wrote that quote has terrible grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most gun restrictions are rooted in racism. The most obvious is "may issue" instead of "shall issue" for handgun permits: if your melanin level is too high for the judge, denied. Completely legal way to take two people who are of identical moral character on paper, and deprive one of their rights.
That said, your painting Fox News viewers and conservatives as racists is needlessly trollish. If it were true, Colion Noir's [youtube.com] regular appearances on the network would have had right wingers banning anything more
Streisand effect (Score:4, Informative)
These files have been available for years now... Its pretty much Streisand effect now
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, not really the same thing here. The objective is not concerned about how many people have it. The objective is just to create more excuses and give law enforcement more powers to label people as criminals... because in order for law enforcement to go after them... the very act of possessing and distributing these materials becomes illegal, which is in direct contravention of our rights.
Re: Streisand effect (Score:2)
This is called paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These files have been available for years now... Its pretty much Streisand effect now
I think this is a NRA plot to make Americans think republicans will take their guns away so that more guns get sold. The entire industry is hilarious in its peaks and troughs. Best sales ever while Obama was president, and they almost went belly up when Trump was running the show because "guns were safe and those evil 2nd Amendment hating dems are not in the office". Then along comes Corona and while the entire world is suffering, guns are sold out everywhere, presumably because people feel the need to prac
Too late asshole lawyers.... (Score:5, Informative)
safely hosted in Switzerland...
https://3dgun.btfh.net/ [btfh.net]
Beating a dead horse (Score:4, Informative)
Not only are these files YEARS out in the public (as other posters have said)... but even if they weren't they aren't hard to create.
3D printers aren't the problem. They're a tool.
3D schematics aren't the problem. They are the software that feeds the tool.
3D users aren't the problem. They are the people who operate the machine.
People who use firearms legally are not the problem. We call them "people."
It's people who use firearms ILLEGALLY that are the problem. We call them "killers" or "shooters" or "murderers".
This attempt at silencing free speech does nothing to stop them. It only seeks to stop the existence of "files."
These people wanting free speech stifled so CAD files are unavailable and the freedom to create them is stifled
-- fuck them.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beating a dead horse (Score:4, Insightful)
Since a 3d printed gun has never been used in a crime...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
Perhaps the real crime here, is the overzealous use of the words "appears to be" when referring to the "3D" weapon in this crime. In other words, this appears to be sensationalist bullshit in order to try and get 3D printed guns in the crime statistics.
Here's another clue as to the bullshit factor in the article. The murderers go out and kill someone and then post a fucking selfie on social media with the caption "We some fighters and some shooters.” and we're supposed to believe these same people went through the effort and cost to 3D print an untraceable weapon?
I'll say it again. Bullshit.
No School Shootings! (Score:3)
Great to see there hasn't been a school shooting lately. Keep up the good work!
no problem (Score:2)
banning 3d printed guns will work just as well as banning counterfeit money.
Timing (Score:2)
In the middle of heavy lockdowns, the timing is hard to ignore, even though these things are pretty much useless.
Re: (Score:2)
In the middle of heavy lockdowns, the timing is hard to ignore, even though these things are pretty much useless.
When I can break a stick off a tree and whittle it into a more effective weapon than any homegrown 3D "gun", it says a lot about the entire legal argument here. The actual risk needs to be looked at (that whole "useless" factor), because guns are designed to perform a single function. If the risk is low enough, then so is the justification to raise legal arguments. In other words, this "problem" is actually rather easy to ignore.
Besides, we're not going to ban or control 3D printers or designs any more
He can't do it alone (Score:3)
He needs Barbara Streisand to help.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, look, Maw... (Score:4, Funny)
...there goes the horse a-trottin' across the pasture. I wonder if I can get the barn door to close.
Re: (Score:3)
These designs are not undetectable, they all require detectable amounts of metal to function properly let alone for more than one shot. If you are going to speak from authority you should probably have half an idea what you are talking about.
But then you rarely do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for posting your resume. I'm glad you had something productive to do when you were 13. Too bad most everybody doesn't do that.
Still, nobody 3D prints an AR platform. (AR stands for Armalite btw, not 3D Printed Gunzez).
Single use pistols are the rage for 3D hobbyists. I'm not quite sure why since you can get a Glock which is mostly polymer for less than the cost of a 3D printer, and then smuggle the barrel (the metal part, you know, you've been doing this ... since... what.. 13...) in any numbe
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be illegal to distribute 3d-printed gun files. But let's not bullshit: you can buy a gun anywhere. I mean, there is literally no place you cannot buy a gun. If one of your requirements for a self-defense weapon is, "won't set off a metal detector", then fuck no you shouldn't have a gun, and you should be on several watch lists to boot. You probably shouldn't be allowed to own anything more lethal than a flyswatter.
And I have been a gun owner since I'm 13, so I've been exercising my 2A rights since before most of you were born.
If one of your concerns is that 3D printed guns "won't set off a metal detector", then please excuse yourself from the discussion and go stand over in the corner with John McClane who thinks a "Glock 7" can do that stupid shit too.
As far as you touting being a gun owner, let's just say there is a large and fundamental difference between someone who owns a car, and a mechanic.
Re: (Score:2)
1) you clearly don't know how the internet works. 2) you don't and cant control it. 3) your hypocrites. You allow guns but ban these guns....
1. The internet was created by the US Department of Defense [wikipedia.org]. Oh, the irony...
2. Please do not underestimate totalitarian asshats [melmagazine.com].
3. Your grammar needs incremented: you are == you're. You're welcome.
3-D printed guns are a hilarious way to combine the US 1st and 2nd Amendments, they have nothing to do with a practical, useful gun.
In the US, you can buy a very useful, very lethal gun online and have it shipped to your house in most states with no background check or paperwork of any kind: it's called a
Re: (Score:2)
You show me a firearm that doesn't have SOME piece of metal in it. At the very least the firing pin will be metal, the springs will be metal, not to mention the brass cased ammunition these firearms are all designed to use is metal. Top that all off with the fact that if you don't use some metal lining in the barrel, accuracy will be absolutely terrible the first shot and nonexistent for all successive shots. These politicians are completely ignorant of the real problems if they think 3d printed guns are the actual issue in any way shape or form.
Your argument is as old as John McClanes Glock 7.
Stop assuming politicians understand this, or even want to. "Detection" is just the clickbait bullshit word used to sell 3D printed gun stories.