3D gun printing

[Something completely different]

I guess I posted an article on this subject already some weeks ago.

Yet this documentary was uploaded to Youtube today and I felt like posting it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA


I am personaly an advocate for the right of an individual to own firearms as long as they are registered.

Yet what is shown in this documentary seem to me to be abolutly and completly insane.

[Tiberius]

What is wrong with making your own guns if you also register them?

[Something completely different]

And who will ensure that you registere them, without the people who do it screaming "opression"?



To be frank this is stuff is also every drug cartel, criminal organisation and terrorist organisations wet dream.

[popeyespappy]

There are no federal laws in the US requiring registration of semiautomatic rifles in calibers of .5" or less. Most US states don't register those types of weapons either. Nor are there any laws against making your own unless you try to sell it.

[TaraJo]

People able to make their own guns. I get the feeling the NRA is finally going to be in support of a gun control law if this is ever brought up for debate.

[Jackalope]

And who will ensure that you registere them, without the people who do it screaming "opression"?

Who will ensure that homemade guns made today on a $2000 programmable CNC will be registered?

The answer is: nobody. It's dealt with after the fact, like the vast majority of law enforcement.

To be frank this is stuff is also every drug cartel, criminal organisation and terrorist organisations wet dream.

Do you think the above have any real trouble obtaining real firearms and would need to rely on the unreliable, and very likely unsafe 3D-printable garbage?

[Tiberius]

And who will ensure that you registere them, without the people who do it screaming "opression"?

Nobody, but then, the point of registering them is to keep track of all the legally owned guns. The government doesn't know about the illegally owned guns; if they did, they would arrest those who had them.

I guess my point is, criminals don't care about laws in the first place. If you make printing guns illegal, the only people who will do it are criminals, so you don't solve any problem.

To be frank this is stuff is also every drug cartel, criminal organisation and terrorist organisations wet dream.

Right, and given that the tech is already available, laws banning it will not affect it. These organisations will still have the capability to print guns.

[Something completely different]

Who will ensure that homemade guns made today on a $2000 programmable CNC will be registered?

The answer is: nobody. It's dealt with after the fact, like the vast majority of law enforcement.

Is that process also as easy as simply printing a gun?

Do you think the above have any real trouble obtaining real firearms and would need to rely on the unreliable, and very likely unsafe 3D-printable garbage?

Most criminlas and terrorist organisations dont give a damn about where their weapons come from or which qualety they have. The NSU, RAF and various other european terrorist organisations used 1960s czech weapons and sometimes even WW2 equiptment.
The Taliban even uses WW1 rifles.

In the end, the qualety isnt the determening factor, it is the prize.

Nobody, but then, the point of registering them is to keep track of all the legally owned guns. The government doesn't know about the illegally owned guns; if they did, they would arrest those who had them.

I know your kind likes to use the word "goverment" because it has almoust established itself to be a swearword in the liberterian circles.
Yet in this case the correct term to be used is Law Inforcement which probably is nowhere (but can be) privat.

If law inforcement would stop registering guns it would only create a legal relaim for those who give arms to illegal circles. A gun bought and registered at the local magistrate, which is later found at a murder scene, can be traced back to the owner with the registration number, who than has to stand responsibility and explain why the firearm he purchased was found at a murder scene.

Banning the registration of firearms will create a legal relaim in which people who should own firearms can easily come to those via third persons.

I guess my point is, criminals don't care about laws in the first place. If you make printing guns illegal, the only people who will do it are criminals, so you don't solve any problem.

Simply stating that "criminals will do crimes anyway" is not a viable exuse to deregulate laws to create a legal relaim. It is actualy a really childish way of seing things.

Lets legalise murder because murderers will murder anyway!
Lets legalise rape because rapists will rape anyway!
Lets legalise speeding because speeders will speed anyway!

It is the purpose of laws to make criminal behavior as difficult as possible, and not to give potential criminals a legal relaim to act within.

Right, and given that the tech is already available, laws banning it will not affect it. These organisations will still have the capability to print guns.

Who is talking about banning?!?!

Can you show me who is doing that?!

I do simply think that this is troubling and could have dangerous consequences and that therefor: debate should exist over responsible use and how abuse can be prevented.
You should try for once not to think in extremes!

[Jackalope]

Who will ensure that homemade guns made today on a $2000 programmable CNC will be registered?

The answer is: nobody. It's dealt with after the fact, like the vast majority of law enforcement.

Is that process also as easy as simply printing a gun?

No. What difference does that make? Given the existence of 3D printers, is it even possible to prevent someone from doing it whether it is unlawful or not?

I understand your concern, I really do. I just don't see that there's anything possible that can be done as prior restraint to prevent people from violating this sort of law. Therefore, it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

Do you think the above have any real trouble obtaining real firearms and would need to rely on the unreliable, and very likely unsafe 3D-printable garbage?

Most criminlas and terrorist organisations dont give a damn about where their weapons come from or which qualety they have. The NSU, RAF and various other european terrorist organisations used 1960s czech weapons and sometimes even WW2 equiptment.
The Taliban even uses WW1 rifles.

In the end, the qualety isnt the determening factor, it is the prize.

OK, so price is the determining factor. Do you understand that the "gun" being 3D printed is a single part (the receiver, the part that in the U.S. at least is defined as a firearm) that (when last I checked) could be purchased for around a hundred bucks, and that you still have to obtain a 3D printer and all of the other hundred or so parts (about $750 USD worth) needed to make a working gun (many of which cannot be printed using current technology)?

Given savings of no more than a hundred dollars or so (and a gun that WILL at some point experience a serious failure), is price really the determining factor?

In other words, build your own for around $750 (+ printer consumables) and have it blow up in your face at some point, or buy off the rack for $850.

The whole point of 3D printing this shit is, as I understand it, is to be able to manufacture guns "off paper", that is, outside of authorized, legitimate channels. Unlawfully, in other words. Which the aforementioned organizations seem to have no problems doing in the first place.

[Something completely different]

No. What difference does that make? Given the existence of 3D printers, is it even possible to prevent someone from doing it whether it is unlawful or not?

The difference it makes is simple: Mass production.
The prospect off having several unregistered mass arms producers in a country isnt really a good one. Even worse if just about everyone can mass produce.
From the simple and friendly arms collector, to the mississipi redneck white supremesist who thinks the jews run the goverment to a meth cook trying to guard his meth empire.

I understand your concern, I really do. I just don't see that there's anything possible that can be done as prior restraint to prevent people from violating this sort of law. Therefore, it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

So you are generaly not concerned about a subject until it shows to have consequences rather than trying to preven these potential consequences?

OK, so price is the determining factor. Do you understand that the "gun" being 3D printed is a single part (the receiver, the part that in the U.S. at least is defined as a firearm) that (when last I checked) could be purchased for around a hundred bucks, and that you still have to obtain a 3D printer and all of the other hundred or so parts (about $750 USD worth) needed to make a working gun (many of which cannot be printed using current technology)?

The documentary showed that the goal of those involved in that project was to create a gun which can be completly produced with a printer and not just the receiver.
Other than that it would be very simple to rearange the printer into producing on a mass production scale.

Given savings of no more than a hundred dollars or so (and a gun that WILL at some point experience a serious failure), is price really the determining factor?

Who says that the technology will not become cheaper?
In 20 - 30 years a 3D printer could be in every privat office.

In other words, build your own for around $750 (+ printer consumables) and have it blow up in your face at some point, or buy off the rack for $850.

Who says that printing wouldnt become cheaper.
Other than that the documentary shows that the goal of those in the project was to create a firearm which could be printed completly (in seperated parts which are later to be ajusted) so one would not need to buy the parts later.

The whole point of 3D printing this shit is, as I understand it, is to be able to manufacture guns "off paper", that is, outside of authorized, legitimate channels. Unlawfully, in other words. Which the aforementioned organizations seem to have no problems doing in the first place.

It is not that they dont have a problem with it, it is simply that they are confronted with something new and havent yet found a way to addapt their legal system to that new situation.