3D gun printing good or bad

Now that somebody has 3D printed and fired a plastic gun (no metal parts apart from the firing pin, bullet and perhaps a spring) and the design is out in the wild - is this good or bad?

I think it is bad.

Seeing that you could fire a round from a piece of pipe, or any cylinder that was the right size, I'm pretty indifferent. I think if it becomes common practice, we'll see plenty of missing fingers.

Guns are not dangerous. Regulation of guns is pretty silly, especially since the actual material (steel) is easy to come by and it's just how it's shaped that makes it "dangerous" (even though they're not). Furthermore, guns are very easy to make and once one is made, it can be used forever.

Bullets are dangerous. They contain explosives. It's hard to make explosives since the actual materials are hard to come by so you need to do some chemistry. And even if one bullet is made, it can only be used once. Regulation of bullets is a great idea. The only problem is that people could get mad that they have to show ID and do background checks, etc. whenever they buy another magazine.

WizenedEE:
Guns are not dangerous. Regulation of guns is pretty silly, especially since the actual material (steel) is easy to come by and it's just how it's shaped that makes it "dangerous" (even though they're not). Furthermore, guns are very easy to make and once one is made, it can be used forever.

Bullets are dangerous. They contain explosives. It's hard to make explosives since the actual materials are hard to come by so you need to do some chemistry. And even if one bullet is made, it can only be used once. Regulation of bullets is a great idea. The only problem is that people could get mad that they have to show ID and do background checks, etc. whenever they buy another magazine.

You can't put 90%, I bet, of anyone you poll on the street, in front of a spinning machine that they can "easily" shape steel into a gun that can forever fire bullets. Don't tell me how easily YOU could make a forever gun. You are not making any sense and you are not addressing the 3D printing at all. Did you just want to bring out gun regulations for a chance to "fight" the other side? I didn't know you were this type of person.

liudr:

WizenedEE:
Guns are not dangerous. Regulation of guns is pretty silly, especially since the actual material (steel) is easy to come by and it's just how it's shaped that makes it "dangerous" (even though they're not). Furthermore, guns are very easy to make and once one is made, it can be used forever.

Bullets are dangerous. They contain explosives. It's hard to make explosives since the actual materials are hard to come by so you need to do some chemistry. And even if one bullet is made, it can only be used once. Regulation of bullets is a great idea. The only problem is that people could get mad that they have to show ID and do background checks, etc. whenever they buy another magazine.

You can't put 90%, I bet, of anyone you poll on the street, in front of a spinning machine that they can "easily" shape steel into a gun that can forever fire bullets. Don't tell me how easily YOU could make a forever gun. You are not making any sense and you are not addressing the 3D printing at all. Did you just want to bring out gun regulations for a chance to "fight" the other side? I didn't know you were this type of person.

I think you were responding to the OP from a moral standpoint and saying that people shouldn't own guns at all. I was responding from a legal standpoint, that 3D printing guns should be legal because it would be impossible to enforce and enforcement would mean a severe restriction on privacy (spying on people's internet connections to make sure they don't download the gun file). I've had this conversation before and was subconsciously assuming that you had the context from that conversation as well. Let me clarify a bit:

3D printing of guns could be considered bad because it makes it really easy for anybody to make them. Right now, there are laws that say that only certain people can own guns. With the 3D printing of guns, it becomes extremely easy to break that law (at least when 3D printers become desktop devices in 5 years). I'm saying that these laws are misguided. The government should not control the ownership of guns, but rather the ownership of cartridges. Cartridges are much easier to regulate because they're consumables and much harder to manufacture (even if making gunpowder becomes easy, anybody that can make the gunpowder can also just make a straight up bomb which is likely a bigger problem)

I never meant that any random person could make a gun that lasts forever. I meant that making a gun is much, much easier than making a bunch of cartridges, and the gun lasts longer.

I "like" the idea of these sorts of plans being available. You don't need things like freedom of speech if you only plan to say popular things. Controversial things push the boundaries and make people really consider laws and regulations. Unfortunately most of the considerations going on are "how can we ban this?".

From a design standpoint, this shows that the technology is improving to a point where it can withstand high pressure applications.

Unfortunately this will be blown way out of proportion by the anti-gun crowd. In the US it is perfectly legal to make your own firearm (but you can't make your own sound suppressor, because safety is dangerous or something). Criminals wont bother printing guns when they can just order a crate of AK-47s from Russia for $50 a piece, or make a one-time use gun with $5 worth of parts from a hardware store. It's already easy for criminals to obtain guns (because "criminals don't follow laws" hur hur hur). Explosives aren't really that hard to come by either. I have roughly 30 gallons of highly explosive gasoline sitting in my driveway right now.

You can't baby-proof the world, its a dangerous place. People will always find ways to kill other people and no laws will ever change that.

I wouldn't like to test one for my own safety, but guess a 3d gun had... to be developed one day. It also won't surprise me if we see more advanced 3d-guns in a few years.
Looking at our hobby and since there have been discussions about drones in politics lately, I wonder how many of us would be able to build one. I'm not interested in building destructive devices, but a GPS-receiver, controller, knowledge about model-air planes and an explosive payload seems to be all you need.

It is (kind of) bad, not because it is a gun, but because it is fuel for the arguments of the "it-is-new-and-we-do-not-understand-it-so-we-must-restrict-it-at-once" types of journalists and politicians.

You can make functionally better firearms from plumbing supplies. It will cost less, take less time to do, use simpler tools and be a lot safer for the person firing it.
The other media stunts concerning printing parts for guns, have mainly been concentrated on printing AR15-type receivers.... because they are restricted in the US, and you can buy the rest of the gun as un-controlled spare parts.
Where I live, the barrel and the bolt are controlled items too, making things a whole lot more demanding regarding strength. And even then, the "printed assault rifles" you see are often testfired with a .22LR adapter, because they can't handle full size rounds.

During WWII the Danish resistance produced quite a number of STEN submachineguns in a bike shop, and that is nothing compared to what the Polish resistance produced with very primitive means, or the guns produced by hand in Peshawar.

Conclusion:
There is nothing revolutionary to this. It is at best a proof of concept. Illegal gun production is still illegal, and in most parts of the world it is also illegal to shoot at other people unless some rather specific criteria are followed.

Peter_I,

I disagree that nothing revolutionary is in 3D printing guns. A layman in terms of firearms like me can simply push a button (assuming the model and the printer are in decent quality) and obtain a firearm. It's a revolutionary producing method like all 3D printing methods to the point that individuals may produce products of their likes (maybe modify them) instead of purchasing the products from vendors. Now they only need raw materials. Business model will follow this if enough demands are there.

Next up is legal issues but I think Simpson_Jr brought it up already. It eventually is up to the people in a country to decide whether it is legal to produce certain things in a personal workshop. If anyone doesn't agree, read about whether it was legal to print materials (on paper) or own a print press in your own country say 100 to 200 years ago. Now every computer user has a printer or access to one in public print shop. Whole laws need to be made to regulate printing 3D parts, sooner or later, both as a means of obtaining products and making them for resale. Maybe in a decade we will have summer garage live 3D printing parts sale instead of garage sale of used stuff.

liudr:
I think it is bad.

So I failed to find my moral attitude between the i's and a's here WizenedEE. If you're trying to put words in my mouth then that's not very cool. I could have meant it's bad morally because I were politically leaning towards gun control or it's bad for various safety reasons. "Hey I 3D printed a gun with a model downloaded from freegunmodelz.com and an ebay purchased 3D printer!! Let's load it up and kaboom!!!". If I were a gun shop owner or large manufacturer I could also say it's bad for my business. Frankly I avoided saying any of the above to avoid misinterpretation. I now understand your point in gun control but I'm neither with you nor against you. I just didn't feel like discussing it in the first place.

Explosives are (rightly) not easy to come by, yet this not-especially bright individual managed to obtain them from common sources, and kill three and maim well over one hundred more.

The genie has been out of the bottle for over a thousand years.

I'd be interested to know if the muppet who made the printed gun open has fired one more than once.

AWOL:
Explosives are (rightly) not easy to come by, yet this not-especially bright individual managed to obtain them from common sources, and kill three and maim well over one hundred more.

The genie has been out of the bottle for over a thousand years.

I'd be interested to know if the muppet who made the printed gun open has fired one more than once.

The freedom fighter (see what I did there?) that made the 3d printed gun, and shared the plans, has fired it multiple times. It consists of a one-time-use swappable barrel and a multi-use receiver. He also made a 3D printed lower receiver for an AR that survived 500 rounds continuously. It could have gone more but they ran out of ammo.

I'd also argue that explosives are not that hard to come by. Sure, you're not going to run across C4 at your local hardware store, but you can make it fairly easily if you know what you are doing. Low velocity explosives are better for anti-personnel devices anyway. Some of the substances that can be used to make explosives include: Sugar, diesel fuel, gasoline, alcohol (and all its derivatives), paint thinner, stump remover, fertilizer, paint, flour, propane (and pretty much any aerosol), aluminum, oxygen, CO2, plain old air, etc. Following instructions will help maximize the energy output, but trial and error is all you need to get an effective device working.

This was caused by a dust explosion:

Just some grain particles in the air and a spark. You can replicate this on a smaller scale with a small firecracker and a bin full of sawdust.

There is also Tannerite, lovingly known as "powdered C4". A very stable binary explosive with a relatively high detonation velocity that is used for shooting targets. You can order it online and have it shipped to your house (in the US).

The freedom fighter (see what I did there?)

You obliquely referred to him as a terrorist?
Why the obliqueness?

It consists of a one-time-use swappable barrel and a multi-use receiver

Cost per barrel?

AWOL:

The freedom fighter (see what I did there?)

You obliquely referred to him as a terrorist?
Why the obliqueness?

Its funnier that way. The gun he made is called the "Liberator". Its modeled after a handgun the Allies had smuggled into France. The purpose of it was to give the resistance a weapon they could use to kill an occupier and take his weapon, gear, and uniform. Its a fun experiment but has no use outside of that (unless you happen to live in a country being occupied, yet have access to a 3D printer). He would only be a terrorist to those in power that fear their people.

wizdum:
....but you can make it fairly easily if you know what you are doing......

And that is basically the core of this entire discussion.

A man with skill, will and the resources at his disposal can basically make anything.

Its a fun experiment but has no use outside of that

I also agree in that.

There are quicker, easier and cheaper ways to break the law if that is what you want to do.

The original Liberator was made crudely and cheaply made from stamped and turned steel, and is often accredited with being "the only firearm ever produced in shorter time than it took to reload it".
A million were produced, but relatively few were issued, and there seems to be no documented cases of its use.
Anyway it is a much safer and reliable concept than the 3D-printed lump of plastic.

Picture from Wikipedia.

The idea was revived (and quickly scrapped again) by the CIA with the "Deer Gun".

Peter_I:
There are quicker, easier and cheaper ways to break the law if that is what you want to do.

In the US it's legal to build and use a firearm. I'm assuming that regulations vary by state but where I am it's up to .6 inch caliber. Similarly it's legal to own and use explosives and the only license required is $100. There are plenty of rules regarding safely storing or transporting explosives, but nothing to really stop the average person to getting their hands on them. Aside from distributors of those explosives being very wary of who they're selling to.

Setting aside printing 3-D guns, these plastics are hard enough for lots of things I guess? What about 3-D printing keys. Say if someone snaps a few pictures of a key while the key owner is using it and then prints a copy? Would a plastic key be hard enough to open a lock (home/office/car)? Like plastic gun, if you do this, you would also break laws in parts of the world especially when the original key is not yours. Are there other physical items that can be copied which were not allowed/possible?

liudr:
Setting aside printing 3-D guns, these plastics are hard enough for lots of things I guess? What about 3-D printing keys. Say if someone snaps a few pictures of a key while the key owner is using it and then prints a copy? Would a plastic key be hard enough to open a lock (home/office/car)? Like plastic gun, if you do this, you would also break laws in parts of the world especially when the original key is not yours. Are there other physical items that can be copied which were not allowed/possible?

Funny you should mention that....

In another stunning blow to the security and integrity of Diebold's electronic voting machines, someone has made a copy of the key which opens ALL Diebold e-voting machines from a picture on the company's own website.

If you can print a key, you can make one even easier with just a bastard file. 3D printing is better for more complex designs that would be difficult for a single person to make, yet useful to more than one person. 3D design is pretty complicated. Might be useful for small-time counterfeit goods? 3D print an empty iPhone shell that you can sell on eBay to some unsuspecting buyer? I dunno.

OK, on the original note: I am almost indifferent, but slightly worried.

Anybody that is medium skilled can make a gun. So the making of a gun, as opposed to buy one legally with the all the paperwork, is not new. WIth a good 3D printer/materials anybody that is NOT skilled can make one, too. That is the slightly worrying bit.

As others have pointed out, making a bullet is a bit harder, so that stops the average 13year old to make one for his 3D gun. When that becomes easier we will see "accidental" killings.

More worrying is that - as pointed out previously - that it fuels a negative policy towards 3D printing. (Something many Patent holders are too. They see what is happening to books, music and film.