7 ms·
Australian police issue warning on 3D printed guns
- jgoewert 13y agoI can understand the worry about 3d printed weapons, but I don't see much of a difference between this an a zipgun besides that a common zipgun uses a metal tube for a barrel so it would show up on a metal detector. I am completely disinterested in any of the fearmongering about this weapon. There is no way to hold back technology to prevent violence, we just need to accept that and deal with not being asshats to each other that causes the violence.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoIndeed. It's a typical moral panic. The fact is that improvised guns have always been easy to manufacture from very cheap materials. Anyone could make a gun as capable as the 3d printed gun using less than $10 of parts from home depot and no more than a day's labor.
- chiph 13y agoAfter seeing the gun and electro-glove that Tony Stark made in Iron Man 3 (spoiler, sorry), why isn't there more outrage over Home Depot sourced weapons? Personally, I wondered why Tony just didn't buy a fuel-cell powered nail gun, and tape the safety nose down.
- RealGeek 13y agoSo is it perfectly acceptable to kill people with home made guns and bombs for the progression of technology? This is actually terrorism. I see someone creating guns and killing people to be no different than boston bombers.
- orangekawi 13y agoTechnology is not the criminal here. Direct the resources and the anger at the criminals. If we spent half the time on dealing with the real issues (Hate and Prejudice) that we spent on trying to get rid of items that can kill people we would be far more effective at dealing with this problem. I'm just saying.
- reader5000 13y agoActually the real issue is the widely available capacity to put 15 bullet holes in a person in 10 seconds. Let's solve that issue first, then we can worry about "Hate and Prejudice".
- angersock 13y agoThat means you kill two people every magazine. That's not so bad. This isn't really an issue--a properly aimed revolver would be more dangerous. Remember, gun control means hitting your target.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThat's not "the real issue" here either. Such a capacity has a negligible impact on crime, let alone gun crime.
- jtreminio 13y agoThis conversation took a ridiculous turn.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI'm less laid back regarding this than most of the people in this thread (I think it is a problem) but your comment is ridiculous. First of all what has this got to do with bombs? It's a story about a home made gun. Also: Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Until someone uses this to cause terror it isn't terrorism. >> "I see someone creating guns and killing people to be no different than boston bombers." For a start no one has been killed with this gun. People are killed with guns every day - that does not constitue terrorism. The Boston bombers committed mass murder of innocent people and caused 'terror' in Boston - that is terrorism.
- RealGeek 13y agoThis gun is godsend for terrorists. It is a gun that you can easily create at home, and it can be carried on planes and other high risk places without detection. This is even better than bombs for terrorism. Additionally, mass murders with guns kill more people in US than terrorism. Why shouldn't we classify New Town and Aurora shooting as terrorism? Terrorism is not only about politics. Moreover, guns are probably the most political thing in US. Thanks to NRA.
- sp332 13y ago"mass murders with guns kill more people in US than terrorism." Both of those numbers are approximately 0. It's not number of people killed that matters in a terror attack.
- angersock 13y agoBetter than bombs for terrorism? Tell that to the plane hijackers of 911 or to McVeigh. You're not making any sense. Why are you so scared of guns?
- mseebach 13y agoA gun on a plane is widely useless post 9-11. One of the sane responses to those attacks was a requirement that bullet proof cockpit doors be installed on all aircrafts.
- 13y ago
- mseebach 13y agoYeah, you're right. The Oklahoma City bomb was homemade, and as we all recall, for that reason it was widely considered a completely justified bombing.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThe answer is obvious. Is it ok to kill someone with a kitchen knife, or a frying pan? What world do you live in where these answers aren't obvious? Your comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever.
- reader5000 13y agoI'm not sure the theory that violence is caused by "people being asshats to each other" is accepted by anybody other than Wayne LaPierre. Gun violence is caused, first and foremost, by the presence of a gun. A sufficient cause? Often yes, given appropriate context. There are plenty of very successful ways to "hold back" this technology. It's called law. Anyway I don't think anybody is worried about this 3d printed deal other than the press trying to get page views. The scrawny middle class kid who made it is an uninteresting attention whore, and the gun itself is a massive piece of shit. As others have pointed out, self-made ballistic weapons have been possible for years. This doesn't lower the convenience factor.
- smokeyj 13y ago> Gun violence is caused, first and foremost, by the presence of a gun. Gun violence is caused by people.
- zimpenfish 13y agoGun violence is caused by people with guns. Surely?
- smokeyj 13y agoGun violence is caused by people with fingers.
- Sambdala 13y agoViolence is 100% caused by "people being asshats to each other" though. There may be complicated motivations or factors involved, but without at least one person being an "asshat" in any interaction between multiple human beings, you don't get violence.
- freehunter 13y ago>Gun violence is caused, first and foremost, by the presence of a gun. But violence is caused, first and foremost, by people being asshats to each other. A gun is just a tool a violent person may use to be violent. In the absence of a gun, they may use a knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar, a fist, a pencil, a screwdriver, a laptop, a bucket full of sardines, etc.
- clarkevans 13y agoFunny, it looks just like a squirt gun. That can't be good.
- jevinskie 13y ago"This is now becoming a problem the world over," Scipione said. According to whom? The police forces that are trying to drum up FUD about hobby-manufactured firearms?
- zackzackzack 13y agoPart of the social contract in most societies is that the police are the only members of society who can use enough force to kill or injure anyone critically. The governments of these societies create laws to ensure that it is only special well regulated instances when an ordinary citizen can use deadly force (hunting of lower animals and self defense being two examples in the United States). Anywhere these guns can be manufactured successfully thwarts the old laws and contracts. This means that it will be a "Problem", but no one can say for who. The big gun manufactures are going to be pissed and are already probably already preparing legislation to bitch slap any one who tries to produce these guns. The liberator people are working on making the guns not explode and hurt anyone. The police are scrambling to figure out how to reclaim their sole ownership of force. The people are waiting to see what happens.
- epochwolf 13y agoThis isn't part of the social contract in parts of the US. Guns are pretty common in rural areas and I've see people open carry in urban areas around Seattle.
- sp332 13y agoIt's still illegal (and not socially accepted) to use those guns outside of the "well regulated instances" zackzackzack mentioned.
- a-priori 13y agoHe is referring to the principle of the state's monopoly on violence. It's necessary for some violence to exist to maintain internal and external security (police and the military, respectively). The more effective the state, the theory goes, the better able it is to maintain control over the use of violence in its territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- astangl 13y agoIs anybody surprised? Even the inventor of the gun seems quite hesitant about how many times it can be fired safely. Anyone setting out to show how dangerous it can be can simply keep firing it until failure occurs. Voila! If article made any mention of how many times that gun was fired until it failed, I missed it.
- orangekawi 13y agoBetter still, did they mention what ammunition was used? Police typically use +P+ ammunition, especially in smaller calibers like .32 and .380. I have no doubt that the original inventor used standard pressure loads or even sub sonics to decrease the chance of a failure such as this. In the end the gun was a POC anyways, designed to show what could be done. What I find more disconcerting is the continue emphasis on how the gun is "undetectable". While it is certainly harder to detect because of the small number of metal pieces, you still have the ability to detect bullets!! Or are they so focused on the gun itself that they haven't kept up technology to detect gun powder? As others have mentioned.. its all about drumming up noise to defend their removal of this information from the Internet.
- nsxwolf 13y agoDefense Distributed added a piece of steel to the final build to make it detectible and legal. It's entirely possible most metal detectors won't pick it up. Anecdote: I went to traffic court years ago, and after exiting the courthouse stuck my hand in my pocket and realized I had forgotten to remove a handful of .22 LR cartridges. They did not activate the detector.
- C1D 13y agoThey did add a piece of steel to the build but you can build it with out adding in the metal. They added that to the instructions so it could be detectable and legal but it was obvious that any one could just not add in the metal.
- runarb 13y agoThats true. All gun will wear out and fail eventually.
- ck2 13y agoI am not sure why we care about people making plastic guns when they can make full-auto AK47s that are not traceable in the slightest. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-automatic-rifle-building-party http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-autom...
- corresation 13y agoMost people fail putting an Ikea cabinet together. You cannot compare a simple print job with custom construction (even a zip gun is beyond the skills or available tools of many people). 3D printers are currently rare and expensive, however they are bound to become mainstream and inexpensive very quickly. When every angsty teenager has the capability to print a gun simply by hitting "print" with the $69 3D printer in the corner, there is a legitimate concern, and many of the haughty, world-weary replies to this submission declaring this a non-issue and nothing new are not reasonable. How will the world adapt? We'll see. I fully expect consumer 3D printers to be legally required to identify gun-capable parts and reject to print them, or intentionally print flaws (in the same way that your printer will watermark printed currency, and your scanner will corrupt scans of currency). There will likely be restrictions on the strength of the materials, etc.
- cobrausn 13y agoSome guns are useful as clubs without the bullets, but this one is just useless. Unless that same angsty teenager can also acquire bullets, there isn't really a problem - the legal age to purchase ammo is (as far as I know) the same as purchasing guns.
- waffle_ss 13y agoThe guy in the article didn't build a full-auto AK-47, although he did commit a couple felonies along the way[1]. First, he mounted the magazine lock too too far back, which allows the magazine to be detached without the use of a tool - a felony in California on a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip. Secondly, he says Back in my garage I use a grinding wheel to cut the receiver in half and the other components into pieces. I put the scraps back in the cardboard box the kit came in and leave it for the garbage truck. This is an improper demill. To demill a receiver you must cut it into three pieces. Therefore, when he left the receiver out for the garbage truck he effectively transferred his rifle to the garbage truck without going through an FFL, which is another felony. Finally, the process for actually obtaining or building a fully automatic rifle (assuming it's not outlawed by your state) is arduous and expensive. The short answer is that you have to go through extensive background checks by the FBI and BATFE in order to get a $200 NFA tax stamp, which takes months to be approved for. You also have to get a signature from your local sheriff, who can just decide he/she doesn't want you to have one if they wish (alternatively, you can go to a lawyer to set up a special trust to assign NFA devices to). Finally, the actual cost for a select-fire AK receiver, of which there are limited supply as they have to have been registered with the ATF before May 19, 1986 (and there are no more being manufactured for civilian use), is between $15-20K (here's a current gunbroker auction[2] for reference). For a longer description of this whole process see: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159 http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx... [1]: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=767020 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=767020 [2]: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=343242987 http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=34324298...
- nsxwolf 13y agoThey didn't say if they used the acetone vapor process to harden the barrel or the heating process during printing overall to increase the strength. Defense Distributed did this and the .380 test did not explode. It would work in the Australian police's favor to make the gun look as dangerous to the user as possible. I'd still like to know how dangerous the explosion is. It's plastic, so I'm imagining it fracturing and releasing all the pressure quickly.
- ap2002 13y agoBarbra Streisand effect in 3.. 2.. 1..
- Sambdala 13y ago"Police believe that despite this, the files are still circulating." The quality of journalism is pretty awful these days. I can't believe someone would feel qualified to write an article, especially one that came out today, without explicitly knowing that, yes, the files are most assuredly still "circulating" via torrents.
- marshray 13y agoIs it possible to make a worse gun? I.e., a higher ratio of danger-to-shooter to danger-to-target.
- chiph 13y agoOf course - if you build a zip gun and use a barrel that isn't seamless (it was bent & welded into it's tube shape) you'll have a bad time. There's also guns like the Lorcin -- it's made from pot metal and is as dangerous to the wielder as it is to the target. There's no point in buying more than one box of ammo for it...
- guizzy 13y agoYou could try to make it out of glass, I guess.
- C1D 13y agoThis is very scared as 3D printers are becoming cheaper soon any one could print out a gun with litte effort. As people said, you can create your own guns but whats different is this takes little work which any one could do. This could be a world problem as soon as 3D printers become mainstream, especially in countries with tight gun regulation.
- colinshark 13y agoIt's easier and cheaper to make a shotgun with 2 pipes, an end cap, and a screw. I'm not exaggerating the simplicity. http://www.issafrica.org/armsnetafrica/sites/default/files/27_%20%20%20w-w-Pipe-gun-11_0.jpg http://www.issafrica.org/armsnetafrica/sites/default/files/2... Guns are simple. Guns are 17th century technology.