Post by: netcoyote on May 05, 2013, 09:33:30 AM
The Dept of Defense Trade Controls moved to block access to the download of 3D CAD data to build this gun. See it here:http://defcad.org/liberator/ (http://defcad.org/liberator/)
"DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information."
Interesting how fast the government can move when they feel threatened.
*******************************************
This should give the gun banners fits. It should also concern any of us that fly. Interesting how technology has a way of changing the discussion from long held beliefs.
[smg id=12004]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/03/this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/03/this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
Eight months ago, Cody Wilson set out to create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun.
Now he has.
Early next week, Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas law student and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, plans to release the 3D-printable CAD files for a gun he calls “the Liberator,” pictured in its initial form above. He’s agreed to let me document the process of the gun’s creation, so long as I don’t publish details of its mechanics or its testing until it’s been proven to work reliably and the file has been uploaded to Defense Distributed’s online collection of printable gun blueprints at Defcad.org.
All sixteen pieces of the Liberator prototype were printed in ABS plastic with a Dimension SST printer from 3D printing company Stratasys, with the exception of a single nail that’s used as a firing pin. The gun is designed to fire standard handgun rounds, using interchangeable barrels for different calibers of ammunition.
Technically, Defense Distributed’s gun has one other non-printed component: the group added a six ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act. In March, the group also obtained a federal firearms license, making it a legal gun manufacturer.
Of course, Defcad’s users may not adhere to so many rules. Once the file is online, anyone will be able to download and print the gun in the privacy of their garage, legally or not, with no serial number, background check, or other regulatory hurdles. “You can print a lethal device,” Wilson told me last summer. “It’s kind of scary, but that’s what we’re aiming to show.”
Post by: Dbax129 on May 05, 2013, 09:41:29 AM
Post by: huntandjeep on May 05, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
Post by: christopheri on May 05, 2013, 05:16:13 PM
Post by: Smossy on May 05, 2013, 05:19:52 PM
Not sure people should be trying to create things such as this, It just seems like someone would be trying to bypass security systems that are in place to help protect the public. But then again, What do I know.
Cant deny its cool factor though.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 05, 2013, 05:37:02 PM
Post by: netcoyote on May 05, 2013, 05:46:57 PM
I find it hard to believe that the govt or some anti gun billionaire wont try to shut this down pretty quick.
I think THAT is where it will get real interesting in a hurry. The article sort of mentions it. Since this is a product of PRINT media (3D "printer"), is it not then a form of communication or an expression of an idea? Sort of like a book or a magazine article? An expression of an idea is protected as "free speech" by the first amendment. Is it different than the expression of an artists idea visualized by a painting or other work of art. Lawyers will have a field day working this out through the courts.
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 06, 2013, 07:37:49 AM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on May 06, 2013, 07:42:44 AM
There's a guy that's working on an AR reciever and mags using the same 3d printer.
This is the same guy. It will be tough to print a completely funtioning gun. The medias that the printers use are for proto typing and are really not that strong. He has not yet been able to print a reciever that hasent broke.
Post by: netcoyote on May 06, 2013, 08:01:02 AM
There's a guy that's working on an AR reciever and mags using the same 3d printer.
This is the same guy. It will be tough to print a completely funtioning gun. The medias that the printers use are for proto typing and are really not that strong. He has not yet been able to print a reciever that hasent broke.
This concept wasn't meant to produce a daily shooter. It's a demo to draw attention to possibilities. Even if the plastic gun is only able to shoot a single round, the process has been validated. The rest is process refinement.
You can't judge technology only by what is possible today. A few years ago even 3D printing was not possible. First it was an idea, then the concept became a reality. The concept will continue to be improved. Much needs to be done to refine the materials used with the process.
Using this process to make a firearm will be limited at first by materials. Materials research will be the holy grail to make this process useable for many manufacturing processes.
Post by: headshot5 on May 06, 2013, 08:33:46 AM
Quote
“You can print a lethal device,” Wilson told me last summer. “It’s kind of scary, but that’s what we’re aiming to show.”
Wow you can now print a lethal device. Almost as amazing as sharpening a stick, only more advanced. :chuckle:
Post by: netcoyote on May 06, 2013, 09:42:10 AM
Post by: nocklehead on May 06, 2013, 09:59:05 AM
Plasma guns, rail guns, microwave guns, lasers, sound guns, all exist at this time.
precision guided bullets arent too far away either, its just a matter of making existing tech. smaller.
Think star trek, star wars, HALO.......bullets will still be deadly, but guns themselves can and will outgrow the bullet one day.
remember on Star Trek how they could set the tasers to stun or kill?? That would be pretty cool and save lives.
How bout a railgun that shoots a .22 size projectile at 20,000 fps? :P
Post by: netcoyote on May 06, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
Quote
How bout a railgun that shoots a .22 size projectile at 20,000 fps? :P
That would sure make a mess of a gopher. :yike:
Post by: nocklehead on May 06, 2013, 10:59:48 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 06, 2013, 11:17:46 AM
Quote
If you were a BG, which would be more likely to deter you and make you move on, someone confronting you with a sharp stick...or a plastic gun?
Plastic gun probably. No BG wants to get sprayed with water. :chuckle:
Post by: netcoyote on May 06, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
QuoteIf you were a BG, which would be more likely to deter you and make you move on, someone confronting you with a sharp stick...or a plastic gun?
Plastic gun probably. No BG wants to get sprayed with water. :chuckle:
Beware any man sporting a plastic gun. :yike:
[smg id=11929]
Post by: pd on May 06, 2013, 02:18:12 PM
For as long as I can remember (at least 30 years, perhaps more), the "Gun Banners" have tried to put ever stricter controls on legitimately purchased and owned firearms, especially hand guns, all in the hope of "saving even a single life."
Against this tide, the "Clingers" have pushed back, trying to make the point that gun crimes are not committed by the law-abiding, but rather by criminals (hence the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" adage). Thus, efforts to reduce gun violence should focus on interrupting criminal activities, and also treating the mentally ill.
For these past several decades, it has been a back-and-forth between the "Banners" and the "Clingers," without much new and interesting to say.
However, the all-plastic handgun, easily made on a 3D printer, now changes everything. Why? Because this innovation will be the proof that banning legitimately owned firearms can accomplish nothing. Even removing all "approved firearms" from the public would have no impact, because anybody with access to the Internet and a $1,000 3D printer can now make his own handgun.
What do you think?
Post by: netcoyote on May 06, 2013, 02:57:47 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/wiki-weapons-fires-first-100-3d-printed-handgun/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/wiki-weapons-fires-first-100-3d-printed-handgun/)
Liberator - Dawn of the Wiki Weapons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6n6UXQY#ws)
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 06, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
However, the all-plastic handgun, easily made on a 3D printer, now changes everything. Why? Because this innovation will be the proof that banning legitimately owned firearms can accomplish nothing. Even removing all "approved firearms" from the public would have no impact, because anybody with access to the Internet and a $1,000 3D printer can now make his own handgun.
What do you think?
Anyone with access to simple metalworking tools has been able to make their own guns in their garage since forever. It's not even illegal. And those are a hell of a lot better than what a 3D plastic cutting machine can do.
3D printing might change a lot of things, but the status of gun availability is super far down that list.
Post by: netcoyote on May 10, 2013, 08:34:56 AM
The Dept of Defense Trade Controls moved to block access to the download of 3D CAD data to build this gun. See it here:http://defcad.org/liberator/ (http://defcad.org/liberator/)
"DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information."
Interesting how fast the government can move when they feel threatened.
*******************************************
Post by: Atroxus on May 10, 2013, 09:01:41 AM
However, the all-plastic handgun, easily made on a 3D printer, now changes everything. Why? Because this innovation will be the proof that banning legitimately owned firearms can accomplish nothing. Even removing all "approved firearms" from the public would have no impact, because anybody with access to the Internet and a $1,000 3D printer can now make his own handgun.
What do you think?
Anyone with access to simple metalworking tools has been able to make their own guns in their garage since forever. It's not even illegal. And those are a hell of a lot better than what a 3D plastic cutting machine can do.
3D printing might change a lot of things, but the status of gun availability is super far down that list.
Are you sure? I thought you had to have an FFL manufacturer license to manufacture guns? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 09:03:47 AM
Post by: netcoyote on May 10, 2013, 09:17:08 AM
I don't have a problem with a plastic gun being banned. Allowing production sounds like a set-up for security problems wherever they screen for firearms.
This whole story highlights the futility of "banning" something. Whether it's speech, guns, software. internet access, etc. This genie is out of the bottle. In the two days that this site was up and offering free distribution, it had thousands of downloads that are now just as available as they were from the beginning. http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-takes-over-distribution-of-censored-3d-printable-gun-130510/ (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-takes-over-distribution-of-censored-3d-printable-gun-130510/)
Situations like this really challenge the free thinkers among us. "Government shouldn't ban guns!...well ok, maybe THAT one is OK to ban..." That's the problem when you focus on an object rather than behavior.
Hard to make a call isn't it?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
This is a copier-made zip gun, basically. Do you think that zip guns should be legal, too, Coyote? They aren't now and I don't see a single person in our gun crowd fighting for the right to own one.
Post by: netcoyote on May 10, 2013, 10:13:29 AM
It is a hard call to make. However, the purpose of this gun would be what exactly? You have a gun which, for all intents, looks like a toy - problem number one. Next, it's owner has the ability to overcome screening devices - problem two. The parts obviously can't handle more than one or two uses, so this is not a gun you're going to train with and hand down in your family generation after generation, possibly use for self protection or hunting or target shooting - problem three.First point, I'm not a proponent of this gun nor am I against it. To me, it's an assembly of piece of plastic. I'm just a techie that likes new technical innovations that challenge traditional thinking. What it represents, I believe, is the real story.
This is a copier-made zip gun, basically. Do you think that zip guns should be legal, too, Coyote? They aren't now and I don't see a single person in our gun crowd fighting for the right to own one.
To your points:
1) "Looks like a toy." Which is worse, something that looks like a toy, or something that looks like a real weapon, but IS a toy? More problems with that one I believe.
2) "Can overcome screening devices". So could a plastic knife. That technology has been available. If screening becomes available to detect it, BGs will just move on to something else.
3) "Parts can't handle more than a few uses". So now it's just a materials problem and gets us away from the basic issues. The materials problem will soon be solved. That's a given. There are too many other practical uses for this technology for this to not be solved.
So we are back to the core issues. First and Second amendment rights, open-source software distribution rights, internet freedom from government intrusion and probably a few others. This sure has opened a can of worms...
So, zip guns are illegal? But don't they have them in prisons?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 10:19:59 AM
Post by: pd on May 10, 2013, 10:20:06 AM
It is a hard call to make. However, the purpose of this gun would be what exactly? You have a gun which, for all intents, looks like a toy - problem number one. Next, it's owner has the ability to overcome screening devices - problem two. The parts obviously can't handle more than one or two uses, so this is not a gun you're going to train with and hand down in your family generation after generation, possibly use for self protection or hunting or target shooting - problem three.
This is a copier-made zip gun, basically. Do you think that zip guns should be legal, too, Coyote? They aren't now and I don't see a single person in our gun crowd fighting for the right to own one.
Your points, PianoMan, are apt. No, I don't know of anybody clamoring for the right to own a zip gun. But the larger point was well made earlier in the discussion: The genie IS out of the bottle, and will never go back. Sure, a metal lathe could help make a metal gun, but this 3D printing technology makes it very simple to make a single-use, even disposable, non-detectable hand gun. The point here is common to the whole "Gun Control" debate: You cannot ban guns, because they are so simple to make. You have to control the behavior, not the object. On this point don't we all agree?
The issue of homemade nuclear bombs is very different. Yes, the plans and recipes for such bombs are now widely available. However, very few are capable of the physics or manufacturing required to make the bomb, and the materiel required is difficult to source. Thus, controlling the ingredients is the solution to preventing proliferation. But the situation for firearms is exactly the opposite: The materials and techniques required to make crude handguns is both inexpensive and easily obtained. Therefore, controlling the ingredients (plans, printers, plastic) will not work. Don't try to ban the guns, control the mentally unstable and criminal elements who would abuse them.
In summary, let us hope that the "Gun Banners" would now realize that they are tilting against windmills in the present debate. To avoid gun violence, they must focus their efforts to control the behavior of those who would abuse firearms, and not try to control the supply (or legitimate use) of guns.
Post by: bow4elk on May 10, 2013, 10:21:38 AM
Post by: arees on May 10, 2013, 11:32:40 AM
http://gpiprototype.com/services/dmls-direct-metal-laser-sintering.html?gclid=CP6owdTHgrcCFRSVMgodbnkASA (http://gpiprototype.com/services/dmls-direct-metal-laser-sintering.html?gclid=CP6owdTHgrcCFRSVMgodbnkASA)
Yes, it is a 3D printer working in metal. Expensive now, but we know which way the price will be going.
As far as the government banning the plans, that is pointless. I was working on some file manipulation software that involved encryption and decryption. The code we needed was banned for distribution in the US. It was a crime to post it on a US based server. Fortunately, there were links to non-US servers that hosted the software. With a digitally connected world you can not put the genie back in the bottle.
Post by: CP on May 10, 2013, 11:42:55 AM
Post by: jyerxa on May 10, 2013, 11:49:12 AM
The problem with posting these data files on the world wide web is that violates ITAR (http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html (http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html) ) laws. Each download outside of the US is an “export” of technology, hence the ban.
That is true for law abiding citizens. The gooberment? :bash:
Post by: 724wd on May 10, 2013, 03:58:50 PM
Are you sure? I thought you had to have an FFL manufacturer license to manufacture guns? :dunno:
not illegal for a regular joe to make his or her own firearms. only becomes an FFL issue if you want to sell them or distribute them.
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 11, 2013, 11:59:09 AM
Are you sure? I thought you had to have an FFL manufacturer license to manufacture guns? :dunno:
not illegal for a regular joe to make his or her own firearms. only becomes an FFL issue if you want to sell them or distribute them.
I believe you need a tax stamp on homemade guns, but you are correct that they are in fact legal to build and own.
Post by: jaymark6655 on May 21, 2013, 05:20:08 PM
Tax stamp is just needing for making suppressors.Are you sure? I thought you had to have an FFL manufacturer license to manufacture guns? :dunno:
not illegal for a regular joe to make his or her own firearms. only becomes an FFL issue if you want to sell them or distribute them.
I believe you need a tax stamp on homemade guns, but you are correct that they are in fact legal to build and own.