3 ms·

I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US firearm

by cdjk 13y ago

I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US firearms law) at home for a long time with cnc equipment: http://cncguns.com/ http://cncguns.com/ In fact, it's possible to buy an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 and some jigs that will let you finish it on a drill press. 80% is the magic number at which it's no longer considered a firearm. Even with advances in 3D printing I'd much rather shoot a metal firearm than a printed one. I'd also assume that they're using a fairly pricey 3D printer, or doing a lot of finishing work, and not using a stock reprap or the like. If AK-47s are more interesting, they can be made out of sheet metal. Also, I'm pretty sure the name is a reference to the FP-45 liberator, which was designed to be used by the resistance during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

KevinMS 13y ago
Everybody should be aware of this. This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more convoluted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears. I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle? (I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)
  - cdjk 13y ago
    There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing. My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly. [1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Why are people against banning civilian ownership of all guns in principle? I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my pellet gun. What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?
      - bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
        Ask the Koreans who had to defend their property from looting when the police didn't respond during the LA riots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_and_Korean-Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_an...
        stcredzero 13y ago
        A lot of people don't understand why people would want to be ready for situations without the rule of law, but we've seen that it can happen from a natural disaster just as easily as loss of utilities. In a free society, people should be able to choose to do so, and other's judgements and opinions shouldn't be a justification to stop them.
      - cdjk 13y ago
        Shooting guns is fun. For some people, a real rifle, even something like a 22, is going to be more fun than a pellet gun. Trap shooting and sporting clays are also going to be difficult with a pellet gun. Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea). Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone lives in a remote area. Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley won't work in Alaska.

by cdjk 13y ago

KevinMS 13y ago

Everybody should be aware of this. This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more convoluted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears. I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.

sillysaurus 13y ago
Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle? (I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)
- cdjk 13y ago
  There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing. My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly. [1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Why are people against banning civilian ownership of all guns in principle? I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my pellet gun. What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?
    - bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
      Ask the Koreans who had to defend their property from looting when the police didn't respond during the LA riots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_and_Korean-Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_an...
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        A lot of people don't understand why people would want to be ready for situations without the rule of law, but we've seen that it can happen from a natural disaster just as easily as loss of utilities. In a free society, people should be able to choose to do so, and other's judgements and opinions shouldn't be a justification to stop them.
    - cdjk 13y ago
      Shooting guns is fun. For some people, a real rifle, even something like a 22, is going to be more fun than a pellet gun. Trap shooting and sporting clays are also going to be difficult with a pellet gun. Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea). Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone lives in a remote area. Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley won't work in Alaska.