Yeah you think. They've come a long way since Cody Wilson's proof of concept dubbed "The Liberator." Check out the 3011 or Hoffman lowers, or the FGC9 "Bob" rest JSTARK's soul.
For those you need to look at DIY channels, not 3D printing. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if gun nuts were all "Ewwww, gauss guns? Where's the explosion? More like GIRLY GUNS, amirite?"
i can see that, but 3d printer plastic necessarily has to have a much lower melting point no?
im sorry if this is dumb, im not a big gun connoisseur, isnt it very easy to manufacture the metal casing anyway? and im also assuming you would need to make the lead thing too.
I’m not looped into any possible home attempts to make DIY casings, but I would presume you’d need to do some problem solving with the material. It just seems like the most plausible angle to work on to me. The point of thermal issues is relevant, not just in the material standing up to heat but also for cooling the gun itself. It’s imagine that successful DIY printed casing would be more feasible with single shot or bolt action type firearms.
With traditional home reloading, no people normally don’t produce their own casings. You can buy them, or you can reuse already fired casings.
It depends on the level of 3d printer you're talking about. Your average $300 at-home printer is basically the hot end of a glue gun on stepper motors, though you might be surprised at some of the materials they're capable of printing in. Everything from basic ABS plastics to Nylon and Carbon-Fiber reinforced filaments are easily available.
If you're talking commercial grade, $10k+ printers, that's an entirely different story. Commercial printers are capable of printing objects out of steel. There's been a lot of work in that area to print all kinds of things from guns parts in military grade polymers to entire engine blocks, no assembly required.
On the 3d printed gun end, supposedly people have figured out the issues to the point where you can print 100% of the parts out of super basic plastic (the most commonly used plastic in 3d printing is PLA, which has a melting point around 200 degrees Celsius), though the stuff I've seen online is more about using internals from cheap guns and 3d printing the external "furniture" of the gun either for custom cosmetics or aftermarket parts like handles and grips, or to create an expensive gun out of cheaper components. As for the ammo, I've only heard that "people were working on it." I don't know any of the specifics.
I couldn't tell you myself, I think it's crazy too, but NATO trialed caseless ammo during the Cold War, and if that's possible, I don't see why plastic ammo (at least cases) couldn't be.
Though you sure as hell won't see me jumping in line to try it out.
Caseless is an entirely different branch of innovation than polymer cases, but both have been shown to work.
There are multiple examples, but one that sprang to mind was the Textron NGSW submission, if you want to see what was being floated to the military recently.
No need for a 3D printer to make your own ammo, when there are reloading presses already designed for that that will make reliable and safe ammo much more easily. People also make their own lead bullets from tire weights and fishing weights, just by melting it in a crucible and pouring lead into molds
If I had to guess, the two most likely reasons are: for the challenge of it, and to reduce the amount of required tools.
I feel like the people who work on 3d printed guns largely fall into 2 camps - the people who just like to build things, and the people who look at a 3d printer as a valuable tool in the whole "become ungovernable" concept.
I know the second group are responsible for designing a fully 3d printed gun that's currently being used to fight against a genocidal military regime in Myanmar, for example. The people there are getting zero international aid, and can't get their hands on guns. But, they can get ammo, and they can get 3d printers. So they've set up 3d printer assembly lines to make guns that are at least good enough to kill a soldier and take his gun. It was designed for exactly that kind of situation - basically the Liberator one-shot pistol the CIA designed to be air-dropped into occupied France during WW2, except as a modern semi-auto SMG chambered in 9mm.
Crazy, I saw a lot in the shotgun realm for 3d printing slugs and shot and sabot shells, but nothing else yet. I'll have to do some digging. Honestly moving away from lead sounds great to me.
This GNU/GUN is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
They actually are open source, and there is indeed a lot of material out there to help people with everything they need to build their own. The only part that is illegal to make on your own is the part with a serial number on it, for tracking purposes.
The only part that is illegal to make on your own is the part with a serial number on it, for tracking purposes.
Perhaps that is the case elsewhere, but to point out that in the US, it is legal on the Federal level to make your own complete firearm for personal use. Assuming no state specific laws prohibit it, it is by default legal. ATF FAQ page. If you are not an FFL holder, and are not going to sell the firearm it does not need any serial number. All NFA restrictions still apply to homemade firearms.
The practice of legally homemaking firearms pre-dates 3D printing, with 80% AR-15 lowers being a modern and widespread example.
Technically, you're supposed to give it a serial number and register it with a local FFL. Giving it a serial number (or NOT giving it a serial number) on your own would run afoul of many new 'ghost gun' laws that have been put in place. This is obviously, dependent on location. At the US-federal level, so long as you don't plan on selling it I don't think it is required.
Wrong again. I've provided a source with links to all applicable legislation on the subject matter on a per-state basis. These rules do exist in some jurisdictions.
They further require that dealers and manufacturers of ghost gun building blocks must be federally licensed.
The problem here is "ghost guns" is a nonsense word anti-gunners made up with no actual definition, much like "assault weapons". Most often it refers to simply guns without serial numbers, which the media and government use to manipulate the public into thinking a bunch of people are being murdered with 3D-printed firearms instead of firearms with the SN scratched off. It's far easier to simply buy one off the shelf at Academy or at your favorite local black market.
"Building blocks" are more commonly referred to as "80% lowers" and are not 3D-printed plastic, but blocks of CNC-machined aluminum. Yes, the White House is trying to make it illegal to own unregistered chunks of aluminum.
Further, 3D-printed lowers are manufactured by individuals, not sold by dealers or manufacturers.
It's kind of wild to realize that some states are trying to outlaw owning blocks of steel that have zero machining operations on them because benchtop CNC exists. I don't even know how they think that this is going to work; make every single machine and tool and die shop have an FFL in order to own a Bridgeport?
This is a fundamental problem with gun control; the tools that are used to make firearms--and to make ammunition components--are widely available, and have many uses outside of making firearms. Most people don't make their own guns because it's more expensive if that's all you're doing, unless that's your business.
I think what you and the other commenter are having friction with is that on your first comment declaring that it is "technically required" you did not specify that it was state by state, and the vagueness gave the impression it was a statement applying nationwide.
Now you are showing a link talking about state-by-state legislation, which is a more restricted and nuanced reframing of the original statement. Beyond that, your link seems to show 39 states do allow homemade firearms with no additional state laws, making that the majority. While declaring the rules one way or the other for the whole nation would be incorrect, saying that they are allowed is less incorrect since the majority of states do allow them.
This may be true for some specific US states, but declaring it wholesale true in the US is wrong. From the ATF FAQ on homemade firearms:
You do not have to add a serial number or register the [privately manufactured firearm] if you are not engaged in the business of making firearms for livelihood or profit.
If you weren't jumping on your replies like some addicted meth head, you'd notice that I added some additional clarification about 20 seconds after I initially posted. But I guess 20 seconds is too much for people to wait before they check their inbox.
This is really bad advice. DEFCAD is a paid service that requires a fucking FFL to download files, but this is not made clear at the time of purchase. The gatalog is a much better resource for anyone new to the scene.
Can't stop the signal.
The first and second amendments are seen as the cornor stone rights for sure in the US. They enable and protect each other and other rights played out in the constitution.
Some are kinda, yeah. The AR-15 is for sure, and most 3d printed lowers would be, and iirc gen 3 glocks (I think, because that's what all the 80% and 3d print glock lowers are), and I think colt SAA by now, but many designs are still owned by the original company.
I’m not an expert in 3D designing, but it seems to me that the AR-15 is a popular 3D print rifle from a practical perspective more than anything else.
The lower isn’t under extreme stresses, it can be thickened and reenforced without impeding function, and it snaps in modularly to factory made uppers. It helps a lot that the AR-15 parts market is diverse and easily accessed.
There's a reason that I listed ARs and 3d printed lowers separately. ARs themselves are basically open source, nobody "owns" the design, so say Hodge, Noveske, Colt, SOLGW, Radian, etc, can all produce lowers etc, MIM industries can produce all the lpk bits, but so can NBS etc, cerro forge and Brass Aluminum Forge Co can both make identical "milspec" uppers, the only thing that is really "trademarked" on any of it is the branding, or an advancement like Geissele's maritime bolt catch (which similar knock offs were produced immediately, anyway.) If you started making and selling say a2 parts (except lowers, but that's just because you need a licence to manufacture for sale) tomorrow nobody could stop you.
Interestingly, Glock is another one that there's strong 3D printed support for. It's likely because Glock was designed to be polymer, and there's very strong aftermarket support for them, so you can print the serialized part and make it work as a firearm with no real problems.
I was just thinking out loud more about why you don’t see printed AKs or at least not nearly as much. The AR-15 layout just seems practical for printing.
Yeah the Plastikov does exist but is definitely less popular and a bit more involved. They also have printable CETMEs now though too lol. Basically any cheap parts kit someone is probably working on a solution if one doesn't exist, and they're doing cool shit like the 3011.
ARs and Glocks are also some of the most popular purchased firearms (like through an FFL), so I'm not surprised they'd be the most printed, they're basically the Toyota Camry of guns, easy to work on, dependable, and last long.
You can make a gun out of a bar of soap if anyone's interested. The benefit of the soap route is you can get though older metal detectors. (The new stuff takes a full 3d scan in high detail)
Freedom as a concept is to vague and personal to be useful any kind of real discussion; "freedom" means whatever you think it means. This is why politicians love to say it.
I would say that you're right guns make people feel safe.
However, that the constant threat of violence in society leads to degradation of social norms, especially for children who then get less socialization and become more extreme.
You see this in like more people choosing to homeschool their kids - they then get lower quality education and poorer social skills and are less able to survive in society. In a capitalist world, this is slowly eating away the ability of americans to compete in a global economy and so there is a strong movement to isolate our economy which will only make us less competitive.
I would say that you’re right guns make people feel safe.
I just wanted to say that guns absolutely do not make me feel safe, knowing one is nearby or seeing one makes me incredibly anxious. Holding one even more so. I don't understand how people can feel safe around them, to me it's like having a ticking time bomb in the room but the timer was set by a rng.
That's fine if you feel like that. And YOU should stay away from them and I fully support your desires and rights to do so. But others don't feel the same.
Empty words from someone that does not understand how countries with less guns still work and don't have CHILDREN KILLING IN THEIR SCHOOLS ALL THE TIME
At compared to the other western countries, the gun rights in the US are a huge difference to almost all others. Switzerland is the one big exception I can think of, partly because of the huge shooting history / culture (which is often still actively celebrated) and because soldiers can take a private weapon to home (which had the original sense that in case of war, they could directly have a gun).
I live in austria, we have gun rights and like 33guns/100people (if I remember correctly) and we never had a single school shooting in our history, also the terrorists involved in the shooting in vienna a few years ago illigaly imported their guns from serbia
That's just not true / comparable. While Austria has more gun rights than in most other Western countries, it's nothing in comparison to the US. In Austria, the only guns you can freely buy are single shot guns. And for those, you need to wait three days until you get them.
To get a very limited amount of semi-automatic weapons, you need to, similar to other western countries, have a Weapons possession card that's subject authorization. To get it, you don't only need a psychological report but also a justification, be 21 and need to fit other requirements. You also need to report every weapon you get so Austria knows where the weapons are.
In the US meanwhile, it depends on the state you're living very much, but in some states, you can get semi-automatic weapons (which are completely banned in Austria) in a shop in just minutes. And that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that. In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that. And it's often not even age restricted. In the US, guns are sometimes a presents for kids which they can just…own and use (while in Austria everything is obviously 18+).
And the biggest difference is carrying a gun. In Austria, you are not allowed to carry them in public (and getting that licence is almost impossible for normal people). While in the US (in many states), you can just carry any gun around in public whatsoever. So even if the police sees you having weapons in public, they can't / don't do anything about that, because it's just legal.
I general, the gun rights in Austria are bigger than in most of other Western Europe. But even Obama's 2012 proposal to significantly lower the freedom of guns in the US would have resulted in still much bigger gun rights than in Austria. There is just a huge difference.
I'm not arguing one way or another but I want to clear up some very common misconceptions about US gun laws.
in some states, you can get semi-automatic weapons (which are completely banned in Austria) in a shop in just minutes. And that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that
This is just blatantly untrue and I wish people would stop parroting it. If you go to any shop you need to pass a federal background check to buy any non-vintage firearm (pre-1899..not exactly a ton of those floating around). The exception here is private firearm sales, i.e. I go to Craigslist and sell a rifle or handgun. The law states the seller has to have no reasonable cause to believe they would be an unlawful possessor (weak, yes). With that said, almost half of the states (22 per Wikipedia) have implemented state-level laws requiring a background check for private sales.
In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that.
Again, objectively untrue. You are not buying a firearm from any legal, licensed dealer in the US without going through a background check. And a violent criminal offense will get you barred from purchasing. For the 28 states without laws around private sales, the seller can be federally legally liable if they sell to someone that is not legally allowed to have a gun and they use it to commit crimes.
In the US, guns are sometimes a presents for kids which they can just…own and use (while in Austria everything is obviously 18+).
No, a child cannot legally own a firearm. The parent can purchase and own a firearm that they are allowed to use, but they do not own it. In many states if the child hurts themselves or others with such a firearm the parents will be held liable, many states have laws around safely storing firearms when children are around.
While in the US (in many states), you can just carry any gun around in public whatsoever. So even if the police sees you having weapons in public, they can’t / don’t do anything about that
In most states if you don't have a license to conceal carry and you do you are breaking the law and can be charged. I'll say this one isn't entirely false but heavily depends on your state.
A large part of why this issue gets nowhere is that neither side can even agree on what is true today, rather than what should be true to bring down the issue of violent crime. If one side says "They're totally unregulated you can just buy one off Amazon and start blasting. We have to do something!" The other side is gonna think "Well they obviously have no idea what they're talking about, no point in listening to what they have to say"
In the US meanwhile [...] [a]nd that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that. In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that.
If you're talking about buying a firearm from a store, that's simply not factually correct.
Every single firearm sold by an FFL holder must have a form 4473 filled out, and each person buying a firearm must go through a criminal background check. ANY felony conviction that could have sent you to jail for more than a year--regardless of whether or not you got jail time--permanently bans you from owning a firearm until the conviction is expunged (and in many states, your gun rights need to be proactively reinstated). Any misdemeanor domestic violence conviction will likewise bar you from legally owning a firearm, as will having an active retraining order. Being involuntarily committed to a mental facility will bar you from ever owning a firearm at a federal level (without a judicial proceeding to restore your rights), and being voluntarily admitted will cost you your rights in some states.
Keep in mind that these are federal regulations that supersede any state or local regulations. A state can not opt out of the NICS or decide that gun stores don't need to comply with BATF regulations. The only "exception" per se is that, in my state, a carry permit means that the gun store doesn't have to send in form 4473 for approval; you've already passed a more stringent background check--including fingerprinting--so it would be moot. You do still need to fill out a form 4473, and the gun store is still required to retain a copy, but the instant background check is deemed irrelevant.
You do have some errors in your little rant. While firearms are easier to acquire in the US as a rule, there are still some restrictions and forms you need to fill out. Plus there can be a near byzantine set of laws that each state and even cites can pass to further restrictions on purchase and ownership. It might be the biggest issue about firearms ownership that there are few national laws for enforcement. It's mostly up to each state and city regulations and enforcement.
Convicted felons are pretty much barred from firearms ownership across the US. The only real exceptions might be a billionaire who can buy anything. Or perhaps it's just easier to pay some else to shoot people for them.
Everyone has to fill out a Form 4473 which is a universal federal background check against a data base to see if you can legally own a firearm. It is an electronic background check done at the time of sale and transfer. It can take a few minutes or a few hours to get done. And you can be disqualified for a simple misspelling or even if your name is similar to a some who is barred from purchase. Then it's up to you to get your name cleared. All and any firearms purchases through a dealer MUST have a Form 4472 attached. And the dealer must keep a record after the sale for a fairly long period of time. A good number of states have further restrictions and requirements on the purchase and ownership of firearms. Which require further state background checks and issuance of a special card to buy a firearm. And individual cities can impose further restrictions yet.
Minors, under 18 years of age, (a few are 21), in the majority of states cannot legally buy a firearm. And are generally only allowed to handle or use a firearm with an adult present - some exceptions would be during a hunting season and only when hunting. But even then, there will be an adult somewhere around.
Carrying a handgun publicly, with the exception of a very small number of states, is very controlled. Some states, like California or New York are quite restrictive to the point that pretty much only wealthy people can actually afford to pay for all the hoops you might need to jump through to get such a permit. A tiny number of states, like Texas allow for common carry laws without a permit, (often called Constitutional Carry). But the majority of states require that you have taken a special class and then go through more special background checks by local law enforcement to get the permit issued. And these permits require renewals every few years with more background checks every time.
Again, I think the biggest issue is the lack of a uniform national set of laws and requirements for firearms purchase and ownership is what confuses everyone. States are considered to have most of the power to make many laws that the federal government can't over ride. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes not so good perhaps. But it's the system we have for better or worse.
Sweden and Canada have pretty high rates of gun ownership and don't have this problem. That said American school shootings are not as common as they are made out to be, there has been a lot of statistical fudging to make it look so much worse than it is.
What all three countries do have are problems with gangs and they're only getting worse as poverty drives people to crime. America has it worse because it has more poverty, but we will all catch up soon enough.
Idk how you make shooting students / children out to be much worse than it is. Kinda seems like any stat greater than 0 should be unacceptable and cause for massive societal reevaluation.
Im just gonna point out we as a culture have been dealing with this problem of just random acts of violence for quite awhile, its just that what came before mass shootings is kinda glossed over / forgotten. Before the mass shootings we had bombing campaigns, the una bomber being the most notable. Its just that unless it was really big it rarely got all that much attention and due to how everything was disconnected at the time unless you were the FBI you may not have even noticed it was a thing.
The problem is that the Columbine mass shotting and rise of cameras kinda killed off the mass bombers. Also Columbine happened right when this shift was happening and thusly became the standard for what people do. If it was instead some dudes shooting up a police station I suspect that would have become the norm.
When you look at serious violent crime, defining that as robbery, battery, forcible rape, and murder, the rate of serious violent crime is similar in the US and UK (edit - and Australia!). The UK has largely removed firearms from the equation--which is easier, since they're an island, and didn't start with 600M firearms--and it has decreased the murder rate, but their overall violent crime rate is still quite high. Despite nominally having single payer health, the system has been intentionally broken by conservatives, and poverty is pretty significant. You see the same kind of sharp economic divides in the UK that you see in the US.
The predictable result is violence.
Murder isn't the problem, it's a symptom. It's like saying that the awful cough and shortness of breath is your problem, and then thinking that cough syrup (with codeine!, since that's the good shit that works!) is going to fix the underlying pneumonia.
Canada has ~1/4 the firearms per capita compared to the US. My guess is that doesn't matter, as you go over 1 gun/resident the added guns probably don't have much of an impact.
However, most shootings in the US are with handguns (restricted in Canada), and a bunch of high-profile shootings with ARs (prohibited in Canada). Concealed carry is practically never allowed, and open carry isn't either. Safe storage is required, so you can't carry unsecured guns in your car either. Storing loaded firearms is forbidden. Owning firearms for self defense is forbidden by law (using them as such may or may not be, depending on the circumstances).
TL;DR: it's not just how many guns, but also what you're allowed to do with them.
As a rule of thumb people stop to mass murder other people, without guns. With extremely rare exceptions, we don't have that shit outside of the US and our schools are not shooting ranges.
The other two things you wrote are not reasons, they are a) a slogan that you could put on a 12 years old t shirt and b) something someone who is having a heart attack might say
people don't stop to murder other people without guns
I live in a red state with lax gun laws. This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard anyone say on the Internet. You should sit down and have a talk with Ahmaud Arbery.
Thats fine, but I also would argue against this kind of purity testing. Where a person is written off because they disagree with you on one or two issue. There are a lot of colorful characters in the community so you would quickly end up very alone...
I like this point of view. I struggle with it myself. It's the reason I didn't watch this video when he released it. I didn't want to write him off. He's made a few comments here or there over the years that has let me glean some info where he just seems like he'd be a tackleberry mall ninja type (works loss prevention/aka mall cop).
But maybe he isn't, and regardless, I watched his videos for the FOSS content and he really doesnt get political(usually ..this video was out of left field). I try to separate the "art from the artist" so to speak.
That said, I wish "artists" didn't make that so difficult.
I started watching DistroTube several years ago, seemed like a fairly straightforward guy, would do a few tutorials on Linux commands, aggregated FOSS headlines, did a full install of Arch in real time once.
Then one day on his channel he told a story. Apparently he worked in a retail environment, and was accused by a customer, a "minority" as he put it, of "following her around the store." He made a pretty big point that he responded to his manager "thanks for letting me know."
suspicious eye squint
Then he told the story or going to a Trump rally.
Yeah he's a right-wing nutjob. Surprised he hasn't hurt anyone yet.
His rant on Mozilla's "We need to do more than deplatforming" was my last straw. He raked them over the coals for a title and never read a word from the article.
I'm pro FOSS, and pro gun. I just can't stand people that do no effort and use there platforms to sow division though.
