7 ms·

I 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 tub

I 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 ago
Indeed. 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 ago
  After 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 ago
So 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 ago
  Technology 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 ago
    Actually 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 ago
      That 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 ago
      That's not "the real issue" here either. Such a capacity has a negligible impact on crime, let alone gun crime.
- jtreminio 13y ago
  This conversation took a ridiculous turn.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I'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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Better 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 ago
      A 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
  The 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 ago
I'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 ago
    Gun violence is caused by people with guns. Surely?
    - smokeyj 13y ago
      Gun violence is caused by people with fingers.
- Sambdala 13y ago
  Violence 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.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Indeed. 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 ago
After 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 ago

So 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 ago
Technology 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 ago
  Actually 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 ago
    That 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 ago
    That's not "the real issue" here either. Such a capacity has a negligible impact on crime, let alone gun crime.
jtreminio 13y ago
This conversation took a ridiculous turn.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
I'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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Better 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 ago
    A 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
The 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 ago

I'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 ago
  Gun violence is caused by people with guns. Surely?
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    Gun violence is caused by people with fingers.
Sambdala 13y ago
Violence 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.