Gun Rights? Just Print a New One

Printable Gun

It seems the debate on Gun Rights is almost about to become a Moot point

A Law student from Texas has used a 3-d printer to "print" the worlds first "printable gun" A gun made in this manner will have no serial number, no traceable parts, no registration and if your guns were ever taken you can simply go to your PC soon and download a new one.

The issue here is that as 3-d printers come down in price just about anyone will be able to print a gun, there wont be a metal bar for detectors and you will be able to walk right through a scanner on an airplane with one unnoticed...

This also poses problems for nations in which prior to now gun control existed. Anyone, anywhere with a few hundred bucks and a PC will be able to simply print a gun out and go blow away the person of choice in their lives.

Huge ramifications ranging from Industry, gun manufacturing, security and law

Obviously it is not hard to imagine that with a few blueprints one would be able to assemble an automatic weapon with fair ease by making multiple interlocking parts.

Pandoras Box? What do you think?

I'm surprised this thread is off to such a Nonexistent start?

In theory this means that no government anywhere will be able to control the existence of guns soon.

You cannot just "print" a new gun. What you can print is the receiver of the gun that the fire control parts go into and the upper assembly, and recoil buffer assembly attach to. This is not a printed fully functional gun, which some people lack the common sense to grasp. What he has done is a major step into the future of 3D printing, but it is so far off from being a fully functional firearm that it isn't even funny.

The parts that are required to make a fully functional gun cannot be printed with todays technology simply because they require the use of hardened steel. You could make a zip gun perhaps, but anyone can make one of those now with a quick visit to the local hardware store.

Also just a side note, anyone that knows how to operate a CNC machine can make all the receivers they want, and they don't need a 3D printer to do it. It is legal in the US to manufacture a firearm for personal use.

The zip gun that this guy printed would be picked up by airport security because it uses a nail for the firing pin. This is basically a one time use zip gun. like I stated already you can make one of these right now, and you don't need a 3D printer to do it.

reply to post by penninja

Boy that looks errr, just horrible.

Guns everywhere are hanging their heads in shame.

Hell, skip the "gun" aspect altogether. Design a set of gloves so that a person can hold a bullet by the casing and then all thats needed is a small contraption which can be used as a firing pin.

reply to post by SpaDe_


I'd have to disagree, I see absolutely nothing technically that can't be done with a 3-d printer. Yeah sure maybe you have to add a bit of steel but nothing is hard about that, in theory there is no "part" that can't in time be replicated. This is... attempt one by a law student, when the rights people put there minds to it the assembly of some very advanced plans should be very easy. It's not like others wont pursue this.

Originally posted by penninja
I'm surprised this thread is off to such a Nonexistent start?

1. We did this same thread a few weeks ago.
2. He's not the first.
3. He's not printing a gun. Just one part.

reply to post by penninja


What's the point of printing zip guns, when you can just make them now without a printer? To make a truly functional gun it has to be useable and reusable. Real guns have steel barrels, hardened firing pins, hardened springs, and are safe to use. All it takes is one small printing error, and when this thing misfires you could have a bullet lodged in your leg, arm, torso, or worse it could kill you.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by penninja

 

What's the point of printing zip guns, when you can just make them now without a printer? To make a truly functional gun it has to be useable and reusable. Real guns have steel barrels, hardened firing pins, hardened springs, and are safe to use. All it takes is one small printing error, and when this thing misfires you could have a bullet lodged in your leg, arm, torso, or worse it could kill you.

lol why are you obsessed with bashing the very first attempt by one person at something?

This topic actually has nothing to do with THIS particular gun.

There are plastics 15 x stronger than steel.... Your argument seems to be akin to someone showing you a floppy disk and you going on about how it can't hold a whole book and thus will never replace libraries...

Obviously technology improves...usually quickly, the issue at hand isn't how good the FIRST one made is but where it will go....

There wasn't even an Internet in any real meaningful way 20 years ago....

Think about, the capacity to 3-d print large caliber fully functional automatic weapons will surely be a THIS Generation issue

reply to post by penninja


Yeah just like in the 80's people said by the year 2000 we would have flying cars, and we would no longer be using conventional weapons, and in their place we would be using futuristic laser weapons. Look how well that went.


ETA: By the way, without the addition of the nail, which he could not print, this "gun" would not even function. So, no he did not in fact print a gun, all he did was print some parts. Another note for those that don't know, they already make a 3D steel printer, it's called a CNC machine. They have been around for a long time, and anyone with enough money, like that required to get a high quality 3D printer to print a gun like in the OP, can own one.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by penninja

 

Yeah just like in the 80's people said by the year 2000 we would have flying cars, and we would no longer be using conventional weapons, and in their place we would be using futuristic laser weapons. Look how well that went.


ETA: By the way, without the addition of the nail, which he could not print, this "gun" would not even function. So, no he did not in fact print a gun, all he did was print some parts. Another note for those that don't know, they already make a 3D steel printer, it's called a CNC machine. They have been around for a long time, and anyone with enough money, like that required to get a high quality 3D printer to print a gun like in the OP, can own one.

edit on 5/5/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

Time is variable on these things, Lasers didn't go as fast as people thought BUT the first are being deployed and systems like FEL will now actually change the landscape of war, in fact if you think about guidance systems well, Lasers have been mainstay for years and altered the course of american warfare once already

As for Steel printers they aren't economical, size-able or practical for home, or economical

Plastics and even ceramics are... AND there is a commercial push for these things... No one had a parctical use for lasers in the home, 3-d printers will sell like the VCR and the $$$ will be there just like regular printers and pc's to make them mainstream as a result...

Flying cars? never practical in regards to fuel consumption and economics and even litigation

3-d printers however will be HUGE

reply to post by penninja


I'm not discounting the fact that the economically priced models wont be used, but the high quality ones will be so far out of reach for the average person it will be unrealistic to think that more than a handful of people would even be able to afford them. The current per month lease price for one of the high quality printers is $590/month with a signed 24 month lease the price tag to purchase it outright is $34,900.00! Normal people cannot afford that kind of money, so the price is going to have to come way down like to 1/10th it's current price before I see them in many households.

reply to post by SpaDe_


The Radio Shack Tandy 1000 computer cost about $1000 in 1986. It had a 7mhz CPU. If you told the guy at Radio Shack in 1986 that you wanted a quad core 4ghz processor he may have said something close to "That may be technologically possible in your lifetime, but it will be so far out of reach for the average person it will be unrealistic to think that more than a handful of people would even be able to afford them." If you mentioned that you also needed to store 40gb of data on a chip 1/4 the size of a postage stamp he would have burst out in laughter. Both items are commercially available right now and affordably priced for the average person.

Clarke's first law of prediction: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

These articles address what I believe to be the real reason behind the hype about 3D printers being used to produce guns: Associating them with gun production is a gateway to regulating their use for everything else, because they have the potential to allow you to "pirate" nearly anything. Imagine being able to download the spec for a car part and print one out instead of purchasing it from the manufacturer and you can imagine why this is causing nervousness in some industries.

theipstone.com...
arstechnica.com...
venturebeat.com...


.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

The Radio Shack Tandy 1000 computer cost about $1000 in 1986. It had a 7mhz CPU. If you told the guy at Radio Shack in 1986 that you wanted a quad core 4ghz processor he may have said something close to "That may be technologically possible in your lifetime, but it will be so far out of reach for the average person it will be unrealistic to think that more than a handful of people would even be able to afford them." If you mentioned that you also needed to store 40gb of data on a chip 1/4 the size of a postage stamp he would have burst out in laughter. Both items are commercially available right now and affordably priced for the average person.

Clarke's first law of prediction: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

edit on 6-5-2013 by Slugworth because: typo

edit on 6-5-2013 by Slugworth because: Clarke, not Clark

$1000 for a Tandy in 1986 is a far cry from $34,900 for a high quality 3D printer in 2013. That is the current price of the high quality model 3D printer that is required to print most of the high end items that people are seeing floating around. The lower end models print useless junk for the most part.

reply to post by SpaDe_


You are looking at the money values the wrong way. The more important question is what is the cost of a computer with the same capabilities as a Tandy 1000 in 2013? A smart phone can be purchased for less than $200 that is a far more powerful machine than the Tandy was. According the BLS website $1000 in 1986 would be worth around $2100 today. This means that this statement:

so the price is going to have to come way down like to 1/10th it's current price before I see them in many households.

is describing a scenario that already happened with regard to computer systems in general over the last 25 years or so. If you consider that along with the idea of accelerating change it looks likely that 3D printers will become less expensive even as they become more capable. I have no idea how quickly this will happen, but I am sure that it will happen. This poses a threat to anyone who manufactures any simple object or machine for profit, and that is why the media will promote the idea that 3D printers are a potential threat. They are doing this already by associating them with guns even though, as you correctly stated earlier, it isn't really possible to use them that way yet.

This techonoligy is quite old and many guns have been made with it. Nearly any SIFI show you watch it's all the same techonoligy. I haven't watched TV in years but a friend in the business worked on SG-1 and babylon 5 series and did lotas of kool toys