3D gun printing good or bad

Because of the "guns are only made to kill people" fallacy.

This means that the risk of those components failing and injuring the "user" is very high.

Charles Darwin carrying on the Good Work.

Although I understand your points of it being an issue of our freedoms, and I'm not saying that the second amendment has to be destroyed, but let's think about this logically. What benefit could a 3D gun possibly have on society? I think Bill Maher brought up some great points a few weeks ago. Obviously this gun could get past a metal detector, so that poses a threat for all public areas, but there's more than that too.. With the capabilities of a 3D printer that nearly anyone could set up in their own home, this gives terrorists, felons, and mentally unstable people access to weapons. As technology increasingly becomes more advances, only time is holding back people from creating far more destructive weapons. Further, the inventor of the "liberator" said it was made to fight tyranny.. What tyranny is he referring to? It kind of sounds like this gun is meant to be used to attack the government.. I don't want to jump to conclusions here but I don't think the second amendment is worth another civil war. I'm very open to other opinions though, so lemme know what you guys think! :slight_smile:

The printer to do that isn't some little hobby number that can do at most ABS. The machines that can are known and likely going to be controlled soon, witness the Texans making the parts were forced to sign up with the BATF.
The big controversy is not printing whole guns but rather the receivers that can turn non-assault weapons into assault weapons.

The ability to make a single-shot crap gun with almost no metal has been around since before 1950, but I will NOT go into how or what.

You can't even make skyrockets without regulations up to the eyebrows for the last over 10 years.

Please, don't go all "chemtrail" on us!

GoForSmoke:
The ability to make a single-shot crap gun with almost no metal has been around since before 1950, but I will NOT go into how or what.

You mean like this?

Charles Darwin carrying on the Good Work

]:smiley: 10 out of 10

As for the video did the Russians ever really use the "kiss of death"?

robotlover17:
Although I understand your points of it being an issue of our freedoms, and I'm not saying that the second amendment has to be destroyed, but let's think about this logically. What benefit could a 3D gun possibly have on society? I think Bill Maher brought up some great points a few weeks ago. Obviously this gun could get past a metal detector, so that poses a threat for all public areas, but there's more than that too.. With the capabilities of a 3D printer that nearly anyone could set up in their own home, this gives terrorists, felons, and mentally unstable people access to weapons. As technology increasingly becomes more advances, only time is holding back people from creating far more destructive weapons. Further, the inventor of the "liberator" said it was made to fight tyranny.. What tyranny is he referring to? It kind of sounds like this gun is meant to be used to attack the government.. I don't want to jump to conclusions here but I don't think the second amendment is worth another civil war. I'm very open to other opinions though, so lemme know what you guys think! :slight_smile:

You know what else wont set off a metal detector? An arduino and 15lbs of commercial blasting agent. The "metal detector" idea is a farce, the technology to get past them has existed for decades. They do, however, tend to bunch lots of people up in one tightly enclosed space. In tactical terms, this is called "a target rich environment". All these security checkpoints do is move the target closer to the attacker.

One of the things I didn't want to point out. Please, don't give them ideas.

GoForSmoke:
One of the things I didn't want to point out. Please, don't give them ideas.

Who are these mythical "them"? I honestly don't believe we have any terrorist wannabies around here. Just nerds.

JoeN:
Who are these mythical "them"? I honestly don't believe we have any terrorist wannabies around here. Just nerds.

There is a difference between believing and... knowing. Besides, some kid(s) may just be interested without having terrorist tendencies, but what if such a kid also lacks the knowledge/right materials to build a gun like that safely ?
Of course, if such a kid really wants to build a gun, it will be hard to stop him with all the info on the internet. But I for sure wouldn't want to be part of his search, resulting in the loss of fingers, hands or worse...

Simpson_Jr:
But I for sure wouldn't want to be part of his search, resulting in the loss of fingers, hands or worse...

Yup. That's one group I don't want to help along.

The other them is the idealist idiots that want to ram unworkable 'solutions' that actually make things worse down our throats, stripping away more of our rights in the process.

You know some of those "idealist idiots" are the families and friends of victims of gun abuse.. If you were part of one of the families affected by the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't you give up a few rights in order to bring your child back from the dead? I realize this is a vast minority but I encourage you to view things from every angle. :.

robotlover17:
You know some of those "idealist idiots" are the families and friends of victims of gun abuse.. If you were part of one of the families affected by the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't you give up a few rights in order to bring your child back from the dead? I realize this is a vast minority but I encourage you to view things from every angle. :.

Emotional people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that affect society. This is why police officers, judges, jurors, and lawyers can excuse themselves from cases. If you allowed the victims to make the laws, every crime would be punishable by death.

If you allowed the victims to make the laws, every crime would be punishable by death.

Note this is almost a recipe for recursion...

I understand your point and I agree with you, but don't you think that the misfortune of these individuals who lost family and friends unnecessarily outweighs the pleasure you get out of owning a gun? Or maybe just automatic guns? Where do you guys think the limit should be drawn? I'd like to start a poll but I'm not exactly sure how to start a poll on the forum but I think that would be interesting. Anyone else agree? :slight_smile:

robotlover17:
You know some of those "idealist idiots" are the families and friends of victims of gun abuse.. If you were part of one of the families affected by the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't you give up a few rights in order to bring your child back from the dead? I realize this is a vast minority but I encourage you to view things from every angle. :.

They are families and friends of victims of -people- who shot them. Don't shift the blame. The word murder is older than the word gun. The weapon is not the crime, the act of killing is the crime.

I'm all for getting guns out of the hands of criminals, children and people incapable of passing a thorough gun safety course.

If you allowed the victims to make the laws, every crime would be punishable by death.

... by firing squad?

robotlover17:
I understand your point and I agree with you, but don't you think that the misfortune of these individuals who lost family and friends unnecessarily outweighs the pleasure you get out of owning a gun? Or maybe just automatic guns? Where do you guys think the limit should be drawn? I'd like to start a poll but I'm not exactly sure how to start a poll on the forum but I think that would be interesting. Anyone else agree? :slight_smile:

No, I don't think the misfortune of 100 or so people should overrule the rights of hundreds of millions. The minority needs to be protected, but laws based on emotion are just plain bad. Bad things happen all the time, we can't over react every time something bad happens. I think there should be no limit. Bolt-action, semi-auto, full-auto, Armor Piercing, frangible, makes no difference when you are talking about an individual killing defenseless people. Let people own anti-aircraft guns and RPGs if they want. The fact is, criminals wont use those (they can already get them if they want) because they are expensive and overkill. Cannons are really easy to make with parts from a hardware store, but you don't see anyone using those to kill people. Why? Because you don't need cannons, or AP rounds, or fully automatic weapons to kill unarmored, unarmed targets.

I can cycle my mosin-nagant as fast as my friend can get his semi-auto AK-47 on target, and I am far from a professional.

I don't think the misfortune of 100 or so people

Can we just get a level here?
You're equating the slaughter of children and the effects on their families and community with, say, not winning a lottery, or losing a bunch of keys?
A "misfortune"?
Wow. Callous just got a whole new meaning.

Cannons, at least muzzle-loading ones, are completely legal under federal law, with no size restriction. There may be some state laws, who knows. It's completely unrealistic for criminals to use them for any serious criminal purpose so the law has never cared. In fact, in the USA, federal law defines muzzle-loading black powder firearms as not even a firearm at all. Black powder guns can be bought and sold over state lines with no restrictions. I don't think the mail will handle them, but UPS and FedEx will. That seems to be because criminals are too dumb these days to load the things, despite the criminals of a hundred years ago being perfectly able. :smiley:

Do you need a BATF license of some kind to get black powder?