Go Down

Topic: 3D gun printing good or bad (Read 10 times) previous topic - next topic

Peter_I


....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.


Quote
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".
Bob Pease: "My favorite programming language is ... solder."

Chagrin


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.

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?

wizdum


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....
http://boingboing.net/2007/01/25/diebold-voting-machi.html
Quote
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.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

Msquare

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.

wizdum


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.


13 years old is pretty old to wait to get your child a firearm. Kids usually get their first .22lr around 8 years old. Also, what are the parents doing while their child is designing, printing, and using his own firearm? You don't let children play with power tools alone, so why let them play with 3D printers. I don't think we should punish society because some people don't want to be parents.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

Msquare

Quote
13 years old is pretty old to wait to get your child a firearm. Kids usually get their first .22lr around 8 years old. Also, what are the parents doing while their child is designing, printing, and using his own firearm? You don't let children play with power tools alone, so why let them play with 3D printers.
I am missing the " :-) " in the first sentence. But then I see you have Maine as your placement so it may indeed be your genuine opinion. I think that is madness, but then that is me.

I find it (being European) real strange that it is OK for people to have firearms, but you have to be oh so carefull about power tool. No, wait, it makes sense - With a firearm you only shoot other people, with power tools you could hurt yourself (your child hurts itself)  Unless there was a missing " :-) " there too.

wizdum

#22
Jun 16, 2013, 05:54 pm Last Edit: Jun 16, 2013, 06:04 pm by wizdum Reason: 1

Quote
13 years old is pretty old to wait to get your child a firearm. Kids usually get their first .22lr around 8 years old. Also, what are the parents doing while their child is designing, printing, and using his own firearm? You don't let children play with power tools alone, so why let them play with 3D printers.
I am missing the " :-) " in the first sentence. But then I see you have Maine as your placement so it may indeed be your genuine opinion. I think that is madness, but then that is me.

I find it (being European) real strange that it is OK for people to have firearms, but you have to be oh so carefull about power tool. No, wait, it makes sense - With a firearm you only shoot other people, with power tools you could hurt yourself (your child hurts itself)  Unless there was a missing " :-) " there too.


Firearms are just another tool. They are stored as safely, if not more safely, than a power tool. Teach your kid to use it, then lock it away unless you are with them or they become mature enough to be trusted to operate it alone. Like all tools, proper education is important. I find it terrifying that people teach their children that firearms are these scary things that may explode at any time, rather than teaching them proper handgun safety. Whats the first thing a kid does when you tell him/her that something is off-limits? They try to find a way to get to it after you leave. If you don't want your kid to have a gun, thats fine, but make sure he or she knows basic firearms safety. That way they know what to do if they ever come across one, and we wont have any more anti-gun people waving loaded firearms around because they don't know wtf they are doing. Safety courses can be as little as $30 USD. A 3D printer is a tool that can be used to make weapons (including sharp objects), they are also quite expensive and have parts that can burn you. Children should not be allowed to use them unsupervised.

Living in an area with an incredibly low amount of crime, and a very high amount of armed citizens, with very few restrictions on what they can own, gives me a different view on this issue. I don't see any problem where I am, so I find it hard to believe that guns are the problem. I also don't like my government's track record for creating gun laws. So far they managed to make it really hard to buy safety devices (nomatter what hollywood says, suppressors are used by instructors, not criminals), and SBRs (Scary Black Rifles, meaning you can replace the black plastic parts with wood parts and it magically legal).

I don't trust my government with the regulation of power tools, when they are making laws based on what they saw in the latest action movie.

Actually, this brings up a good point for this topic. Suppressors are fairly easy to make with simple tools, but with a 3D printer they are very easy to make. This could be a problem because they are also highly illegal due to Die Hard. I can legally shoot on my own property, but I don't like to because my guns are really loud (looking at getting a .22lr instead) and I am a good neighbor that wants to keep the peace. If I were to make a suppressor on a 3D printer to save my own ears, and bother the neighbors less, i'm looking at about 40 years in federal prison. For a 1/2lb plastic tube with holes in it.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

liudr

Reminder again: I find the spirit of the OP to be NOT specifically trying to do a pro/anti gun control thread, just the 3D printing of gun parts. We know what happens when they start blasting their truths against each other. These people are mostly within the Americas or more specifically within the USA. There is debate over this issue everywhere in the USA already FYI. These people turn any regular threads into gun threads :)

Back to OP, I think if we purchase a 3-D machine, we should control what we do with the machine especially it is at home. If you have children, let them log what they do with the machine, just like any responsible machine shop supervisor, with a notebook, and often check on them. Note to yourself: you just bought a pile of liability (parts, repairs, supplies and dangerous objects). For those that really want guns, hope your region allow gun purchases. Just go and buy a quality metal gun and don't print a plastic part that could blow up in your faces. If you CAN do 3-D printing, you are a potential asset of the society and may hold an engineering job and pay the system back somewhat. Don't give it all away with one blind eye and a few missing fingers for what we give you.

wizdum


Reminder again: I find the spirit of the OP to be NOT specifically trying to do a pro/anti gun control thread, just the 3D printing of gun parts. We know what happens when they start blasting their truths against each other. These people are mostly within the Americas or more specifically within the USA. There is debate over this issue everywhere in the USA already FYI. These people turn any regular threads into gun threads :)

Back to OP, I think if we purchase a 3-D machine, we should control what we do with the machine especially it is at home. If you have children, let them log what they do with the machine, just like any responsible machine shop supervisor, with a notebook, and often check on them. Note to yourself: you just bought a pile of liability (parts, repairs, supplies and dangerous objects). For those that really want guns, hope your region allow gun purchases. Just go and buy a quality metal gun and don't print a plastic part that could blow up in your faces. If you CAN do 3-D printing, you are a potential asset of the society and may hold an engineering job and pay the system back somewhat. Don't give it all away with one blind eye and a few missing fingers for what we give you.


Pretty much this. The ability to 3D print weapons and weapon parts shows that the technology is improving. It's an interesting experiment that sparks some good discussion on the future and possible regulation of 3D printing. It wont end the world, and its not the savior of the people.

I disagree with the "blowing up in your face" part. If someone's dumb enough to try it, let them. Maybe it blows up in their face, or maybe their new gas piston system reduces overheating and weapon malfunctions by 30% and they become the next Samuel Colt.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

liudr

In the old days, I'd say, yeah let them hurt themselves. But now more or less everyone is an expensive investment by their parents and the community and the whole country with tax dollars. Maybe I teach and see first hand how some students waste such money by not doing what's best for themselves (in this case they won't invent the next new gun with pushing shopping carts or else at >$8/hr or partying or wasting their time). Remember, plastic is not particularly strong. You can use this improved production techniques but it's material properties that you need to improve to make reliable firearms out of this new production technique. On the other hand, maybe using the technique to invent new shapes and parts that don't have to stand such heat and pressure is a whole world anyone can safely explore (or make gun models for later production on a CNC or lathe). I would leave firearms production to metal for now. 3-D printed metal parts aren't yet strong or polished enough yet. If you can melt it with a small nozzle to print, it's not that strong :) If there is enough post printing process to make the pieces stronger, I take back my argument. Say if in the future you can print monomers (right term?) and then somehow polymerize the result to make it strong and flexible, then it is not just printed but also processed post-printing. That could make some more impact than just heating and cooling plastics I suppose.

For any type of printing, and production, there should come naturally laws but they are slow to catch up, maybe when economy improves and more 3-D printers are sold to make people notice what we are discussing now.

knuckles

a lot of hype involved to make 3D printing seem more usefull than it actually is or will be  ,it was tested by the Aussie experts and it blew itself apart ,its as usefull as a chocolate teapot .
if you wanted to do such a thing you could modify a replica or even an air pistol with suitable metal parts .



radman

3D printing opens up a lot of interesting applications and the printing technology should not be controlled. However I think releasing the pattern for a gun is irresponsible. Very few people would have the skill required to develop their own pattern and there is no advantage in making such a thing widely known.

GoForSmoke

3D gun printing is good for waking people up and getting them upset.

I wonder how many will bother to learn bullets from cartridges and propellant from explosive? There are or at least were bullets with explosive in them (ask Reagan and Brady) but modern gunpowder is propellant. Can I blow something up with it? Yes. I can also make a very lethal bomb powered by baking soda and vinegar or many other mixes, some much stronger, but that doesn't make them explosives either. You want to see *cartridges* with explosives in them then Google "exploding ammunition syria" where lately it happens, then think about doing your own reloads.  ]:D

Damn but I miss my old copy of The Anarchists Cookbook.


I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

westfw

Irrelevant.

Quote
it makes it really easy for anybody to make them

I don't think that that is an accurate statement of the current state-of-the-art for 3d gun-printing.
The current "gun" requires a relatively high-end printer (Stratasys  Dimension 1200es), and some degree of cluefullness to do final assembly and firing.
I don't particularly see that changing.  A "fact" along the lines of "anyone with $20k+ of specialized equipment and sufficient knowledge can make a gun" is pretty unremarkable.  One along the lines of "you can send specs to someone with with $20k+ of..." is still unremarkable.  I expect that current printing cost from such a source (even if you could find one willing to print it for you) would exceed the cost of purchasing a conventional illegal firearm.
Also, the worry seems largely US-centric, since it also depends on easy access to ammunition (handgun ammunition, at that.)  And its seems somewhat of an academic issue there, since conventional firearms are easy to obtain.

It sorta reminds me of the outrage over "easily obtainable instructions for making explosives" on the internet, and before that in books like "Anarchist Cookbook" or "Steal This Book."  Despite all that info, "not many" people have been hurt by devices made from such instructions.  (compared to nearly any other major form of accidental or intentional death.)

Go Up