The 3D printed gun

So it begins...

[www.forbes.com]

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

... so what - a complete milled/lathed gun, made from aluminium or brass parts with a steel tube will last much longer

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

100% agree with you Viktor. It's just going to cause an uproar and potentially put us under a microscope. All because some bomb-throwing anarchist wants his 15 minutes of fame.

The press is going to have a field day with this.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Well, it's not entirely fresh news, I already saw a 3D printed rifle a few months ago.. I hope we are not going to be bound by strange laws in the future.

Thats also the reason why I will never join an online 3D hub where you can print for others. Then they have your address, and I am afraid of ending up on a list of 3D-printer owners that the government will use to monitor in the future if they find any copyright infringements around my area considering 3D-printed things.

It's nice it's a bit underground for now.

Manufacturing a gun at home is nothing new. People have been doing it for a long time and it's perfectly legal. Why anyone thinks a law prohibiting this kind of manufacturing would stop or slow down any evil-doer is beyond me. Rest assured, any such law would not be about public safety but about politics and government control. With about 300 million guns already in the US, it would still be far easier to steal or otherwise illegally obtain one.

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

@Knimrod

I agree that home manufacturing is nothing new, but in the past making your own gun at home required a set of machines and skills that put them out of reach for the vast majority. Now it may be as simple as hitting a print button. Would you agree that the barrier to entry has been drastically lowered?

Especially with the news today that Staples will be selling the cube in their retail stores. There are 1,575 Staples in the US. So now that it is something that people can go see and touch coupled with the forthcoming offering from Defcad I don't see a way that this doesn't become a firestorm surrounding 3D printing, and reprap especially.

availability + perceived/real danger + political opportunity = regulation



Would it be easier to steal/buy it illegally or saunter down to your local Staples, buy a machine and print one out? To me the choice is pretty clear.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Knimrod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Manufacturing a gun at home is nothing new.
> People have been doing it for a long time and it's
> perfectly legal.

Is the second part of that statement true at least for all states of USA?

Yes.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

what he is doing is perfectly legal, anyone can make a gun, and is legally allowed to.

Ive seen several videos on youtube where people make guns from a tube, one pipe fitting and a nail, and a rubber band, and that thing could fire a 12 gauge shotgun shell.

the one that wilson designed is only capable of firing a 22 short. "standard ammunition" my a**. you probably cant even kill a rabbit with a 22 short, not to mention the accuracy and range of the device. also you have obviously never heard of an 80% lower, you can buy one in any state, and then all you need is a drill press to make it into a 100% functioning lower reciever that does not need to be registered or serialized.

"the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2013 03:59PM by aduy.

Excellent, another futile gun thread! It only seems like a week since the last one.

aduy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun,
> is a good guy with a gun."

America is killing itself

Quote

Keystone is in retreat because one of the guns it makes for children, a lightweight, single-shot, .22-calibre rifle called the Crickett, was used Tuesday by a five-year-old boy in Kentucky to shoot and kill his two-year-old sister. The boy had been given the gun – full name Davey Crickett, a pun on the legendary American frontiersman – as a birthday gift. The siblings' mother was home but wasn't watching.

In the days since the shooting, Keystone has been singled out for making and marketing guns to kids (here's ABC, NBC, the New York Times). "At least one gun-maker is specifically marketing guns to kids," the lefty site Daily Kos reported.

At least one? Here's a list of 20. Google "youth .22" and find 87 models available from Bud's Gun Shop in Lexington, Kentucky, a couple hours' drive from the house where the girl was killed. It's not just rifles. Google "youth 20 gauge" and find as many models of short-stock 20-gauges. Want advice on what handgun is best for your kid? Guns & Ammo magazine says the "Beretta U22 Neo, Browning Buck Mark and the Ruger Mark III, just to name a few"; the Smith & Wesson forums agree on the Buck Mark and the Ruger and add the S&W 22A.

Americans are buying more guns than ever. The FBI reports that in 2012 nearly 20m background checks were conducted for gun purchases in the United States, up 20% from 2011. Under US law buyers must be at least 18 years old. There's nothing in the law about how old kids have to be to shoot or any supervision that must be provided.

So, if the "good" kid had a gun, she could have stopped the "bad" kid?

When you have to start issuing guns to two-year olds for "self protection", you know your society has totally screwed up its priorities. A nation that encourages it's kids to kill each other can hardly be called civilised.

you do realize that there are age limits on owning a fire arm...

I love it when these topics comes up, normally they stir things up a little ...

I can see it now cody wilson's life/or 3d printing gun making time will most likely end up either with death or a missing finger(s), hopefully this idiot is removed from the gene pool a little sooner than later

I would be more concerned about 3d printed knives as those aren't going to blow fingers off ,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

if you want to make a weapon you would make one with any other means any way, i've seen it my self with the paper cross bow and lighter cannon which shoot out home made darts out of q tips, 3d printing wont effect anything different ive seen printed guns and yes im appaled but if you in the us maybe but for an non gun country then no that's bad, but like i said if there wasn't 3d printing technology they would make a weapon out of some thing convert flare guns bb guns whatever.

aduy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you do realize that there are age limits on owning
> a fire arm...

But no age limit one using one apparently.

[www.guardian.co.uk]

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

And a little closer to home for me (60 miles north on the GSP).

[blog.nj.com]

But this is really the parents fault,as they were irresponsible gun owners.

So how may children are going to die from these 3D printed guns that look more like toys than guns?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2013 09:15PM by akhlut.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

people forget you don't even need a gun to fire a bullet.
a gun is nothing more that a complicated device to move a metal pin forward.
if you put a bullet in a vise and hit the back with a nail it will fire.

i'll be impressed if they print a bullet.

as for me, even if i print that gun, i still can't buy a bullet thanks to my government.
and i'm fine with that.

Tbh i am scared of regulation, dont have too much trust in the world.. In the netherlands, I do have a vague idea what people tv programs like 'Pauw en Witteman' might invite on the topic, dont know what/how it would come up/what they should/would say. I mean what would be said in a 'general public' discussion is something to think about.

Personally i'd prefer it if people focussed on useful items in general, preferably stuff that allow you you to do stuff like bicycles, shovels, drill tools, power tools(warning probably dangerous to experiment with if you dont know what you're doing), pens, plugs.(been trying the latter two) Maybe stuff that make converting repraps between purposes easy.(snap-on/off hot end, detachable E-motor so you dont need an extra stepper for say paste extruder.

However it is not like Cody Wilson makes zero points, though i dont think they're getting through if you dont look deeper, so that may be moot. It is a strong statement against taking stuff off their defcad. Frankly though, it is needlessly strong, you can .. just refuse to take stuff off when they come for more 'minor' things like patents. Defense distributed mentioned a distributed way of sharing designs, not sure what they're doing there tbh. Gary Hodgson gives a better direction about with the thing tracker and githubiverse..

ARGH this is ridiculous!

Have Cody Wilson and co. not even thought once about all the people wanting to imitate them and print a gun on their possibly badly calibrated printers!?
Guess they won't go as far as to take responsibility for when people injure or kill themselves if their immature and whiny reaction to Makerbot enforcing their Terms of Service on Thingiverse is any indicator for their mindset.

This sounds extremely cynical and I feel sort of bad for saying it, but the best we can hope for is that Cody blows off his own hand (or something like that) firing that printed gun, to serve as a warning for possible imitators and stopping him from continuing this lunacy like thejollygrimreaper already said.

Also, I completely agree with you, bobc. Which idiot manufactures guns specifically for kids? I mean, why does a 5 year old even need a gun? This obsession with firearms is clearly going overboard.

Quote
aduy
"the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

So the "bad guy" plans ahead and gets a more capable weapon. It's cold war all over again. But seriously, what's up with this "bad guy / good guy" mentality?

too many films

If you are stupid enough to load a round into a plastic gun, maybe you deserve to blow your hand off........

of age? I'm sure no one on here ever consumed alcohol before they were 21........

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2013 12:19PM by Dirty Steve.

uGen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have Cody Wilson and co. not even thought once
> about all the people wanting to imitate them and
> print a gun on their possibly badly calibrated
> printers!?

I think the point was a wake up call. Here is a technology that can put something as lethal as a gun in the hands of anyone with a 3d printer. If Cody hadn't done it, someone else would have. The question aiui is what do we do about it now?

For the record, I think this is a good thing, not because anyone can now make a gun, but because the genies out of the bottle. Remember, guns don't kill people ...

Same reason why Tiger Woods needed to start playing Golf at age 2. You develop skills easier when you are young. You are not supposed to leave the kid alone with it though! The gun is to use with one-on-one very close supervision only. Very tragic story, but no different than "Parent buys bike for 5 year old, leaves him alone outside, and he drives into traffic."

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2013 01:57PM by rsilvers.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

Quote
rsilvers
Very tragic story, but no different than "Parent buys bike for 5 year old, leaves him alone outside, and he drives into traffic."

A gun is a weapon originally intended to bring harm and destruction to another living being. I fail to see how this even remotely compares to teaching a child how to ride a bicycle. And while I am aware of the fact that there are guns intended for sporting purposes, they are still weapons.

Quote
SheldonE
Remember, guns don't kill people ...

Funny how in almost every gun discussion this and "bad guys vs. good guys" invariably appear. Sort of Godwin's Law of Guns.
But fine, if you insist: By that logic, shouldn't we also be entitled to other interesting things like explosives? Or, let's say fully automatic weapons if explosives are too ad absurdum for you.

Actually, what I am more concerned about isn't the relatively loose gun laws but the morbid obsession with firearms in US culture. There are other countries with liberal laws, but in no other did I ever see people so infatuated with guns.


The matter with the printed gun that infuriates me most is the irresponsibility of Defense Distributed in that they make it sound so simple to just print a gun. It's always "[...] provide a file so that anyone can print a gun", completely ignoring the dangers like variable plastic/print quality, bad calibration etc. No doubt that across Stratasys machines, results are more or less consistent, but what about someone new to 3D printing with a wobbly printer, bad filament and little to no experience? Or maybe a kid that doesn't know any better? After all, it looks like it is rather easy for children to get their hands on ammunition in America.

uGen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>A gun is a weapon originally intended to bring harm and destruction to another living being.

I am not saying a bike is a weapon. It was asked why a 5 year old would need a gun, and my response was that you would want a 5 year old to practice with a gun if you wanted them to get more proficient with it. This accident is the result of an irresponsible adult, just like if an adult let their kid be alone near traffic or a pool. My shop tools are in a locked room. I wouldn't want my kids near my band saw. As an adult you are obligated to think of these things.

uGen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>But fine, if you insist: By that logic, shouldn't
> we also be entitled to other interesting things
> like explosives? Or, let's say fully automatic
> weapons if explosives are too ad absurdum for
> you.

Regular people have legal access to some types of explosives, and even the better ones are not illegal - they are just illegal to store without a certain kind of permit - so somehow you have to buy them and use them the same day, without storage. The maker's of explosives choose not to sell them though, so in practice this never happens. You can legally store the components (binary explosive) and then mix them just before use - but once you mix it, you cannot store it. Also, gasoline is quite legal.

The 2nd Amendment was recently ruled on, and anything that is in normal use is considered ok. This includes handgun magazines up to 17 rounds, rifle magazines up to 30 rounds, and the M4 rifle. I would argue that an M4 rifle would be common and popular in civilian hands except that it is artificially restricted from sale. The original intent of the 2nd was for the People to provide balance of power against the government's necessary and well-regulated militia (Army). The next time this comes to court, I am not sure if someone will argue we should have full auto, so it may not be decided on anytime soon.

The military knows that if you want to kill as many people as possible, you use semi-auto, not full auto. This is because you can only carry a limited amount of ammunition, so you need to deliberately aim each shot. If a bad guy had a full auto rifle, he would miss more people than if he had semi-auto only. So even if you wanted to argue public safety, there is no reason to ban full auto. And if you want to argue public safety, you should ban engines over 150 HP and cars that can break the speed limit and basically all sorts of fun things.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2013 05:55PM by rsilvers.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

BTW, I do think this is not a good thing to do right before the non-detectable weapons law was about to expire. As Cody will raise the chances of the law being reissued.

He is trying to say "Hey - look, in the future anyone will be able to print a gun, including criminals, so don't ban any guns as that will only make them illegal for people who obey the law." That may be true, but that argument won't work with people who hate guns anymore than showing them that since you can convert an AR15 to full auto in a few hours there is no point in restricting full autos.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

If you print a gun and blow a finger off with it its your fault. If you shoot someone with it its your fault.

If you print a knife and cut your finger off with it its your fault. And if you stab someone with it its your fault.

Its no more the designers fault than the manufactures of guns or kitchen knives fault. If you are a retard and do something stupid its your fault. The manufacturer does need to insure the product is up to standard and does not dangerously break. But if you print a gun you are the manufacturer and its up to you.

Your responsible for all your own actions and decisions unless your in the army or something like that where you take specific orders. That is the state of the real world regardless of any law any country makes.

The only reason there is always a hubbub around guns, swords and other killing tools is that is what they are, and what they were designed to do. Kill. It was always intend to be the primary function when they were invented and it causes people to be all spooked about them.

The reality is that anybody who is smart enough to design a gun and print it probably wont blow there finger off as they are not stupid. You cant do anything about any of it anyway as you cant control what everybody does. So good on him for trying. I was going to try and make a lethally powerful crossbow at one time just to see if you could. I never got round to it though. It's just what curious people do. Just like people try to print aeroplanes. That's another one I wanted to try and never got time.

At one time lathes in the UK were to be registered as you could make a gun with one. But it was just stupid so it didn't happen. The same will be true for 3D printers. You can't control what people make so just let them get one with it. They will anyway so what's the point in stopping them.

---

Make your Mendel twice as accurate.
[www.thingiverse.com]

possenier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> people forget you don't even need a gun to fire a
> bullet.
> a gun is nothing more that a complicated device to
> move a metal pin forward.
> if you put a bullet in a vise and hit the back
> with a nail it will fire.
>
> i'll be impressed if they print a bullet.
>
> as for me, even if i print that gun, i still can't
> buy a bullet thanks to my government.
> and i'm fine with that.

You mean ammunition. Bullets are just the projectile. By the way, ammunition that is fired outside of a barrel goes so slowly that it won't even pass through a cardboard box. You can throw a box of ammunition into a fire, and when they go off, they probably will not penetrate skin from 10 feet away.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

uGen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how in almost every gun discussion this and
> "bad guys vs. good guys" invariably appear.

I don't subscribe to the "good guys vs bad guys" argument and I don't believe in arming the general public. I don't own a gun, I have never touched a gun, I have never fired a gun and I don't plan on ever owning, touching or firing a gun in the future. All I am saying is it's not the gun that is the problem.

[www.3ders.org]

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

Sorry if I sounded overly cynical, but again, I don't necessarily have anything against guns per se. It's more the mentality of having to arm yourself for all circumstances that I find rather stupid. Why do people have to run around with guns on them?

@rsilvers: Oh, didn't know that explosives were legal. Sort of expected them to be tightly regulated. Thanks for clearing that up. Still, why do kids have to become proficient with a gun at this young age? Isn't it paradoxical that you are only allowed to drive on public roads after reaching a certain age but can handle weapons seemingly without age restriction?

@Madkite: Sort of agree with you that it is your own fault if you do something stupid, but making it sound like it is no problem at all to print a gun on any printer without even mentioning possible dangers is irresponsible because not everyone has the knowledge and experience to know that there are certain quirks about printing plastic pieces.
The least Defense Distributed could have done is issue a warning in their video.
If I advise you insufficiently about a product I developed which you might not know too much about and you injure yourself using or making it, wouldn't you hold me responsible for misinforming you?

Having to license tools is stupid, though.

@SheldonE: I see. Just noticed sort of a repeating pattern in these kinds of discussion. Of course the gun is a neutral object by itself, but the problem is what people make it out to be. Right now, it has become more or less an idol.

uGen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Still, why do kids have to become proficient with a gun at
> this young age? Isn't it paradoxical that you are
> only allowed to drive on public roads after
> reaching a certain age but can handle weapons
> seemingly without age restriction?

Kids cannot carry guns on the streets nor drive a car. Kids can drive without age restriction, or shoot, on private property. It is legal for a kid to drive on a farm, for example.

Kids don't have to be proficient with a gun. It is a choice. It helps them be safer around guns if they learn about them, and they can be more skilled as adults in competition or hunting. Further it is a good way for a father to spend time with his young kids who normally bond to the mother.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]