BS: 3D Gun printing

Subject: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 13 - 04:32 AM

A 3D-printed gun has reportedly been produced and fired. Here's a clip from the BBC site

======
Mr Wilson, who describes himself as a crypto-anarchist, said his plans to make the design available were "about liberty".

He told the BBC: "There is a demand of guns - there just is. There are states all over the world that say you can't own firearms - and that's not true anymore.

"I'm seeing a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want. It's not up to the political players any more."

Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun.

"But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there."
=====

The US gun law debates are pretty extensive, even on Mudcat. But I'd be quite interested in the views of US citizens what they think of the idea of allowing laws of all other countries to be bypassed in this way. There's no need to discuss this is the context of US citizenry, as I believe that's covered elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 06 May 13 - 04:34 AM

Apologies, that was from me.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:10 AM

I saw the news article this morning, and the other thing that disturbs me is that from my understanding no two 'traditionally' manufactured guns fire the same way, so anything 'fired' has a unique fingerprint, whereas the '£D guns' would all be identical, ,and as such untraceable.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:27 AM

A gun is pretty irrelevant, but a 3D-printable ground-to-air missile that could take out a drone, a helicopter gunship or a manned bomber might change things a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Van
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:51 AM

the BBC report was very shallow. A man made a gun which went BANG! no sign of target with a hole in it, no sign of any ammo. Is it any more serious a weapon than we had as children playing cowboys and Indians or is it a guy with a big ego who has designed something that looks less real than a water pistol and people would laugh at (perhaps to death.)

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:57 AM

You are right as far as you go, Van. If you actually wanted a gun in the next few years, this isn't the way to do it. The costs of the printer today would buy a lot of under-the-counter weapons. But that is a somewhat different point. Technology will improve, prices will fall, but the problem will remain

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:16 AM

Complete Red Herring.....Clever, but pointless. Flimsy plastic, probably fires one pathetic shot before self destruction...Interesting and quirky, but that's about it (Oh and the printer costs about 8000 dollars! No, If you want a gun (for free) in the US just open a bank account, and choose from your own selection of high velocity rifles. Bonkers!

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:25 AM

I noticed from the pic, that they had 3 spare barrels, which suggests to me that they don't expect them to last long. It also appears to be single shot. So as is, it's not a great threat to the world, but it's still a gun, and I hate guns! They're unnecessary outside of the armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:51 AM

If you want a gun (for free) in the US just open a bank account
Yes, Ralphie, that's true, but it is specifically the effect of such things outside the US I was concerned about. You can't stop these things spreading by controlling the internet - the plans once created could spread via USB sticks, CDs, whatever. So once a reasonable set of plans exist, they become effectively uncontrollable. No doubt there is an inherent technological problem: by design the plastic must melt under the effects of lasers (if I have the printing mechanism right) and a plastic with that sort of behaviour may be inherently unsuitable for weaponry. But the single use objection isn't necessarily an obstacle depending on the context. It's not a good way to equip an army but for terrorist purposes, for example, the limited lifetime might not matter.

Ultimately it was a broader question I had in mind though. How do US citizens think the second amendment relates to other countries? For example, does the amendment right for US citizens override any consideration of what such technology might mean for every other country in the world? For example, if this is justified in terms of "liberty" as in the original post, does it matter than in many other countries in the world it is likely to encourage increased surveillance of their citizens by the government?

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:23 AM

Something like this by the roadside in Afghanistan could even up the numbers a bit:

http://cannonsuperstore.com/vandenburggun.htm

But where do you get ammo for these things? You can't print cordite.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:26 AM

I marvel that a discussion on 3D printing centers on the singular topic of making guns.

The miracle of 3D printing is that it can make working models (copies) almost anything the mind can conceive. While I don't know about their long-term durability, just think of all the things one could make from simple gears and replacement parts for machinery to complete artificial hearts and other prosthetic devices...if not now, someday soon.

And, yes, with great technology comes great responsibility, to paraphrase Voltaire (I think). So you think negatively on guns, I'll look forward to medical technology.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 May 13 - 10:49 AM

The point, John, is that somebody has already thought aout, designed and produced a gun, and now plans to put the capacity to do the same into the eager hands of evry gangbanger and nutjob in the world.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:03 AM

The thing about a gun is that it often takes 'only' one shot to cause serious issues.

I am one American who hopes they will find ways to curtail ANY easy way to mass-produce weapons. (Those printers have to programmed.... could it be possible to build in restrictions on certain shapes? ...just brainstorming)

Right now they are limited to certain plastic/resin items........ but you can bet there are guys experimenting with adding other materials to the mix.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:15 AM

It takes two metal pipes or tubes, one larger diameter than the other, a nail, and a piece of wood to make a functional shotgun.

The US made and dropped a number into Europe during WW II. They cost less than $2 each.

The only tools required are a hammer ( or hard rock) and a file ( or rough rock). A saw can make it easier, though.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:17 AM

Oh, duct tape or a rag helps as well, but string, a vine, or wire can be used...

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:59 AM

But that way, bb, you do run the risk of doing yourself a serious injury through incompentance, before you get the chance to injure anyone else. With a (perfected) 3D printed gun, that wouldn't happen.

While I'll extol the benefits of 3D printing for medicine etc as much as anyone, that's not the issue in question, which I refer you to above. This line about "with technology comes great responsibility" doesn't cover it, though. We have here a guy who says "I choose not to accept that responsibility". Now what?

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 13 - 12:00 PM

Zip guns- remember those used by inner-city gangs in the 1950s? Any handyman can make one.

Even Wikipedia illustrates a simple homemade zip gun, and suggests ways to improvise and make lethal weapons.
3-D printing takes specialized equiment; interesting, but ho-hum.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 May 13 - 12:44 PM

The hype about 3D printed stuff of many kinds has been buzzed on the internet for several months, with lesser notice going much farther back.

The method has been in use for at least a couple of decades in industry, and with an industrial setup that uses ion implantation and/or plasma condensation useful materials can be applied that have the strength and hardness - and the accurate dimensional control - to make more or less functional parts.

An industrial grade 3D printer has a starting purchase price in the vicinity of $300,000 for the basic machinery, NOT INCLUDING the control computer and programming to actually make anything. "Growing" a part large enough to be useful can take more like months than minutes. It is NOT a production process, although some have used it for "prototypes" and to make test specimens during development of new machinery.

An adequate conventional milling machine can be had for a home shop as cheaply as about $3,000 (with a tradeoff between heavier used machinery or smaller new stuff) and a local junk yard gets you all the raw stock you need to make a "real part" that's both functional and durable enough to be useful.

In the first publicised test firing of a "3D printed gun" they managed to "fire" exactly 5 rounds before it fell apart. This is quite comparable to the $7 (list price a long time ago) "pistol" I bought for $2 just to get it out of the hands of a neighborhood kid who apparently had bought it "out of curiosity" and then didn't know what to do with it. (He wasn't criminal, just curious, and he realized he didn't want it after we had a "a little talk.")

That "pistol" was conventionally made by a "commercial manufacturer" and was actually more functional than the plastic one. It fired 7 rounds before it broke itself. Jokes about "hotter than a two-dollar pistol" have a very solid basis in FACT.

Any competent machinist with a reasonable basic knowledge of weaponry can make a functional gun with sufficient reliability for safe test firing and potentially to be of actual use for some "shooting purpose." (Not all shooting uses have criminal intent or results.) Hardly anyone actually makes "home made guns" despite it being quite simple and cheap. It's just not generally worth the effort for what you get.

None of the 3D printers available to the recent faddists (some of which do cost >$10,000) can make anything out of much other than non-structural plastic. While the "close tolerances" are impressive if you're making chess pieces or garden gnomes, they don't begin to approach what's needed for "precision machines with moving parts." Claims of what wonderful things they've made are more a demonstration of eligibility for a "Darwin Award" than a proof that they have achieved a compensation for the normal sized P***K the maker lacks as an accident of birth.

The claim cited above that the "developer" thinks he's "beating the system" by revealing "secrets" are total BULLSHIT, since any knowledgeable designer can find, or create from scratch, all the necessary blueprints for about anything (including any gun) that's ever had its picture in a newspaper. There are no "secrets" about anything these nuts are doing.

If one of these guys came up with something useful, like an ejection seat for his Porsche, he'd probably demonstrate it in a parking garage with a low ceiling. They're not bucking the system. They're fighting Darwin, and some of them will probably win the award, if they do a lot better than they have so far.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 13 - 01:44 PM

No disagreement, JohnInKansas

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: gnu
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:53 PM

Seems to me I saw sommat on the internut about a plastic gun several years ago. The cartridge is somewhat pyramid shaped and the mag holds a lot of them. Then again, I might not have. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:55 PM

I'm waiting until they put out a Racheal Welsh at 20 years old, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 May 13 - 04:05 PM

gnu -

There have been a number of "plastic bullets" going quite a way back, and your description sounds more like one of those. One such was called a "somethingorother-Jet" (might have been "gyrojet?") and had a minimal "case" that burned out completely, with the propellant mostly in the bullet so that it was more like a rocket than a normal slug. It had "fins" so it could look like a rocket and did have sort of a "triangular shape."

The blather claimed no cartridge to eject for rapid reloading, very light weight ammo so troops could carry a lot more, and "advanced technology." The advertising omitted the minor problems that nobody could hit a target with it very often, and sometimes the ammo exploded in the can instead of in the gun; but it made a splash with the news writers.

There were lots of others, so it's just a guess whether this might be the one you recall.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: gnu
Date: 06 May 13 - 04:24 PM

Thanks, JiK. This just confirms I haven't lost it completely... quite yet. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 May 13 - 05:55 PM

The guy who made the printed gun in the latest reports is the same one who had previously posted his plans at "MakerBot" which is a general site for 3D-Printer enthusiasts.

The plans were pulled off that site when they attracted attention in an earlier "anti-gun wave" sometime around December 2012.

There was a "test firing" of the design posted at MakerBot at around that time, so the new announcement of the "first ever test firing" in the latest report just shows that the reporters don't really know much about what's been going on. The first test, IIRC, managed to get 5 rounds out before it destroyed itself. The latest test got 6, so it was obviously more successful - but wasn't a first. Others may be more impressed with the splendid progress demonstrated than I am(?).

The "new gun" does appear to be a different design than the first one, but of course the news reports don't tell enough to make more than guesses about what actually got changed.

The description of the "Industrial Grade" printer that cost $10,000 is almost a joke. Multiply by at least ten. ...

... Although I did spend most of one night making a model of a "missile and launcher" that I slipped to the boss sort of as a joke as he was leaving to make a pitch. When he came back he said "We blew it on the pitch, but when I pulled out the model all the Generals woke up and played with it and then they signed on the bottom line." I guess my $3 worth of balsa** was "industrial quality" too, so maybe some allowance can be made. That model probably could have been done on their printer in about three weeks once the program for it was finished.

** and one bent paper clip.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:55 PM

If I knew beforehand that a gun was destined to destroy itself after being fired five or six times, I don't think I'd want to fire it once!

Though I've met a one-armed guitar player, I don't have any desire to be one.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:52 PM

Printed guns would be frighteningif real guns were difficult, or particularly expensive to acquire. Re undetectibility by x-rays----the gun may not show up, but the cartridges would.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 13 - 09:08 PM

gnu, those were called "trounds" and they were used in a prototype pistol in the early 1960s. They were, if I remember, fired electrically and the entire project kinda petered out due to lack of interest and limited use possibilities.

Yes, there was a pistol called the "Gyrojet." It fired (electrically) .45 caliber (about 11mm) "rocket propelled" bullets. That is, the fuel continued to burn and accelerate the bullet down the (vented) barrel instead of a sudden burst of hot gases propelling the projectile, which loses velocity as soon as it leaved the barrel. Again, the use for such a weapon was (and is) limited. My youngest brother carried one when flying over Vietnam, as the tracer round he would fire was about the only thing that would penetrate the triple canopy jungle and alert SAR to his position so he could get outa there.

Want plans for a Sten gun, capable of being made in any fairly well equipped home workshop? See "The Anarchist's Cookbook," still available in bookstores and online.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 13 - 09:12 PM

You can shoot a .22 rimfire with a transistor radio antenna. Just not very accurately.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 13 - 09:15 PM

This technology stuff doesn't always pan out. Back in the 80s a friend faxed me a sheet of acid.

It was no good.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 13 - 11:16 PM

You don't need accuracy for an assassination or an execution, or in a "gunfight" range of three feet.* The "Liberator" pistol (.45 ACP) was dropped by the OSS to the various European undergrounds during WW2 with the intent that it would be used one or perhaps two times to obtain a better weapon by shooting a German soldier.





*Yes, I am very much aware of such events as the Luke Short-Jim Courtright shooting match. I am also aware that the average distance for the use of firearms by police in the US is 21 feet. But if you are shooting from three or four feet away at another you will probably hit someone. Of course with homemade firearms you take the chance that the thing will blow up in your hand and you will lose a couple of fingers, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:21 AM

Dick,

There is caseless ammunition, and bullets need to be dense, not metallic.

So, a ceramic bullet on caseless ammunition would NOT show up in X-rays

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:59 AM

Rap -

Be careful about the "Anarchists Cookbook." There are multiple different versions in circulation, most of which will kill you before you get to the second chapter if you decide to try out any of the "recipes."

I've had four different ones that I bought just to get them off of the "sale tables" before some ignorant kid got to them. Not much of a dent in the market, but I figured a couple of bucks that might save one kid was worth it. All four had so many things wrong they'd be lethal if you followed the instructions.

There was an "original" that was mostly "authentic" but I'm not sure how you'd tell now whether you've got the "real one." There are better sources for almost anything you'd find there, even in the original, although a first edition has some fun things to talk about among friends you can trust not to get "adventurous."

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 13 - 09:50 AM

Oh, I bought my copy (and it IS the original) out of the "Humor" section of a bookstore just to keep it out of little hands. I'd trust my copy of "The Manual of Improvised Explosives" more -- it's a US military publication -- which I bought for the same reason. "The Poor Man's James Bond" (reason, ditto) is iffy at best. Now books like "Absinthe and Flamethrowers" describe stuff that would actually work ("Backyard Ballistics" is the first in the series) and also provide safety advice.

My problem is that having once been a paid, trained killer for the US Army I know too damned much.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 May 13 - 12:41 PM

bb-
I know about caseless ammo and plastic (or ceramic) bullets, but it still seems like a ridiculously complicated way to go when so many other, more effective alternatives are readily available.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 13 - 01:37 PM

I'll put my zip gun up against this 3D printed wonder any day.

When I was young, we made many explosives. Some were exceedingly dangerous, exploding if they received a slight blow.

The chemistry sets we had then have been long gone from the market, also druggists no longer have the chemicals we would buy from them because they no longer practice the chemical arts but buy their remedies ready-made from the drug wholesalers.

All of the information is out there, however. A short search in any library will yield the "recipes."

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 13 - 06:21 PM

It is a little disappointing that, despite the question in the opening post and its reiteration, no US responder has acknowledged other countries even exist, beyond a reference to dropping guns on Europe during WWII. Instead, we are back to the same old ground. Ho hum.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 13 - 07:03 PM

It's difficult to see why there should be comment about other countries in a thread about a stupid experiment performed in the US by a nut who claims to be "protesting" US laws, most of which don't exist, and that has been sensationalized mainly in the US press - with no "foreign interest by anyone outside the US" sufficient to have elicited a post in the thread - but:

A recent report did indicate that of the estimated 70,000 downloads (in 3 days?) of the "plans" for the "3D Gun" since the first report, about 70% of the downloads were by people in Europe. I think 2 or 3 countries were named as "leaders" in the download herd. (That's from memory, since it's not really interesting enough to worry about verification.)

It should also be noted that known sales of 3D printers indicate that fewer than about 3% of those who downloaded the "blueprints" could possibly have a 3D printer of any kind or even access to one, with far fewer having one capable of doing anything with those particular plans.

To those minimally knowledgeable of US law, the "question" in the first post is of little interest, since in fact NO US LAWS WERE VIOLATED by making, firing, or publishing drawings for the P.O.S. under discussion. (An inert slug of metal was even included for the sole purpose of making it NOT INVISIBLE to transportation security XRays, Magnetometers, Sonograms, and/or trained cockroaches.)

Local laws are a little different since the last official (BATF) report I have indicated something over 34,000 of them that would need to be individually checked. I suppose I could do a search to see if "plastic" appears in any of them, but it's not at the top of my list.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 03:24 AM

Well, the reason is that the experiment has implications for other countries, particularly those with stricter gun laws than the US

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 03:48 AM

I should perhaps pick up the emphasised point that no existing US laws were broken. Indeed. So question arise is that all that matters? Is the attitude: Other countries? It's their problem to cope with whatever we choose to do.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:09 AM

The guy who made the printed gun is a licensed firearms manufacturer, registered with and licensed by the Federal Government to manufacture and sell guns and gun parts, exactly the same as any other manufacturer with the same license. How he made the gun is immaterial, and the mere fact that he did it the hard way at ridiculous expense, and made a product so obviously inferior that most rational people would consider it more of a bad toy than a functional device does not affect that he did it according to the applicable US Federal laws.

If there is a concern elsewhere, it would seem more appropriate for those who have such concerns to voice them, and explain why they're frightened, than for those in the US to attempt to imagine what those concerns might be.

Those elsewhere may have difficulties with understanding our tolerance for people who do dumb things, but we generally prefer to prohibit only the things that are actually and demonstrably harmful to others. It's one of the things that makes us such "good neighbors" in the international community - and so dearly loved by the whole world.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:14 AM

"prohibit only the things that are actually and demonstrably harmful to others" - er - like guns? Or was that the rarest of natural fauna in its own habitat, an ironic American?

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:03 AM

Ok, let's try a different tack. The US has regulations about the export of weaponry. Where does a digital set of instructions to create a weapon which needs specialise human skills to manufacture fit in? Unrestricted export?

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:06 AM

Damn! ... NO specialist skills ...

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:33 AM

The most likely use for a gun of this type is for terrorism, since it is difficult for security scanners to detect. American seems to have woken up to terrorism only since 9/11, and (that event notwithstanding) have relatively little experience of it, apart from a long-held enthusiasm for shooting your own politicians.

Those of us in other parts of the world for whom the threat of terrorism is, or has been, a daily concern see this latest development as adding to that threat. This is probably misguided, since this has been a possibility ever since 3D printing was invented, but actually achieving it and publicising the process nevertheless seems to some to be irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 13 - 08:53 AM

I can remember when the Glock was introduced- I was informed that "It was only good for hijackers." since it had a composite frame. No need for ANY legitimate gun user to have one.

Funny thing, all the "hijackers" that I have seen with Glocks had uniforms of one sort or another on. ( Police or military)


And they all have 17 or 19 round magazines... ( the Glocks)

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:45 AM

Why anyone continues to treat this gimmick as a real threat is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 02:00 PM

Because I'd rather have thought out what to do while it is a gimmick than wait until someone publishes a viable system in a way no-one can control.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 13 - 03:17 PM

You have a long wait. One could buy dozens of Glocks for the price of the 3D equipment and have weapons that are re-usable and efficient.

The story is just one of those tabloid-level fillers.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:34 PM

Maybe one could buy dozens of Glocks in the US, but as I keep pointing out there are other countries. Now, I see that some 3D plastics retail at 3USD per kilogram. That may not be the relevant plastic but it gives an idea of the prices we are talking about. Even at todays prices - they will fall - a terrorist group wanting a hundred weapons who main purpose was to threaten could use the current stuff effectively and economically.

Now, I'm not in a panic - I know we are at the early stages of all this stuff. But that's all the more reason to reflect on it before it reaches the point of being a serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:41 PM

The same "object" could be made more easily with a big block of better plastic, a pocket knife, and a file. A hand drill would be a helpful addition, but not really necessary.

Regarding the Glock - it still has a steel barrel and a couple of springs more than sufficient for detection by even crude metal detectors and/or XRAY detection systems. The plastic will show in even a crude XRAY as at least a shape.

The last time I went to the downtown cop shop to deliver a piece of paper, the guys at the entry inspection detected each of the two individual paper clips holding my checkbook record booklet together - separately, and made me pull the checkbook out TWICE so they could verify that both "hits" were for the same "dangerous object."

You really think they can't detect a hammer spring 20+ times the size of a BIG paper clip, if they want to, when the guy behind you in the checkout line can read the mag stripe on your debit card if he can get within about 20 inches of the pocket you put it in - and really wants to?

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 13 - 07:34 PM

Yes, the Glock, etc. are easily detectable at check points. My point was the high cost of the equipment to make the 3D plastic wonder.

As John in Kansas pointed out, a bit of shaping can produce one, and access to pipe and plumber's material is easy. In how many countries is it difficult to get chemicals to make explosives or obtain shells for rifle or shotgun and modify, etc., etc. Terrorists may have corrupted brains but they aren't stupid and can improvise.

Guns are available in most countries. That neo-something in Norway didn't have any problem getting weapons, and there have been similar cases in France, Germany, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 13 - 12:17 AM

Of course we have made some progress with our laws, as the anti-smoking crusaders have pretty well eliminated the most frequently used WWII timed fuse used by the resistance to blow up Nazi ammo trains.

A cigarette placed across the top of the matches in a book of paper matches, with the top flap folded shut, would burn down to the match heads and "flare" enough to ignite a target item close by, often just a little "spilled powder" in a trail to whatever was meant to go boom. Cig burn time about 75 seconds, depending on how the cigarette was placed. Very reliable.

Perforated papers on the cigs, required in the US to make them "self extinguishing" makes them unusable - - - unless you know how to plug up the perforations.

Just see what progress we'll make next year when we ban ....

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 09 May 13 - 02:15 AM

Yes, guns are readily available in every country for a price. But governments have some hope of at least limiting their spread via border controls, etc. Moreover, actually obtaining one incurs risks - is the 'seller' genuine or a police agent?

Printable guns eliminate both of those 'controls'. For example they can be created from scratch anywhere there is a machine - possibly in your office at work a decade from now! - so border controls simply can't help.

The second thing is these guns are in effect as disposable as cigarette lighters. Replacement is cheap, easy and much less risky. The only real risk is fingerprints etc, but the guns will melt quite nicely eliminating that sort of check if done properly.

The final issue is one hinted at by John above about the Anarchists cookbook: most of the 'recipes' will kill you. The same applies to any hand made weapon unless you have some measure of skill. The skill required to print a 3D gun is to put the USB in the slot, make sure the hopper has plenty of plastic and ensuring you know where the 'start' button is.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 May 13 - 06:07 AM

Our consciousness needs constant updating to new technology. Even Broadway musicals will be affected: a song from "Annie Print Your Gun" will be reworded "You Can't Print a Man Like a Gun".

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:30 AM

And in every city in places like Pakistan and parts of Africa, there are highly skilled bush mechanics who with nothing more than a metal-press, a lathe and some hand tools will turn you out a pretty good knock-off AK47 (or a Lee-Enfield, or a Bren gun) which will work just as good as an original.

This whole debate is a waste of time. Technology might catch up with human ingenuity one day, but no time soon...

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Fossil
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:31 AM

...d'oh! Cookie gone again! Post above was me, sorry all.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 May 13 - 08:54 AM

I would assume that in a country where guns are highly regulated, ammunition is as well. What good does it do to be able to print a gun if it's very difficult to get ammunition for it? You might be able to make a serviceable gun from plastic, but you can't make gunpowder from it.

If ammunition is hard to come by, then a few logical alternatives are:

Forget about guns and build a bomb instead. Unlike guns, which require gunpowder to work, bombs can be built using any number of explosive substances from gasoline to kitchen matches.

Build a compressed air powered gun. The reason air/CO2 powered guns are usually considered toys instead of genuine firearms is that they're designed to shoot small, non-penetrating ammunition (BBs and pellets). A homemade air gun designed to shoot a sharpened dart would be as deadly as any conventional firearm at an appropriate range. All you'd need would be a suitable compressed air source and some PVC pipe.

Go to a junkyard, get a couple of leaf springs from an old truck, and build a crossbow.


If one's goal is to circumvent a country's laws and regulations to create a death-dealing device, there are much easier ways to do it than dashing off a copy of a gun with a 3D printer.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 13 - 09:22 AM

Bee-dubya-ell,

But we NEED to pass a bunch of ill-considered laws so we can claim to have solved the problem, until the increase in the problem causes us to pass a bunch more ill-considered laws.

After all, elected officials get credit for making laws, and if they solve the problem then there will be no need for more laws....

Nitrocellulose works great as a gunpowder substitute. Real hard to get the materials for.... NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 13 - 10:38 AM

Thirty or forty years ago, after smallpox was declared extinct, Russian scientists reported that they had "constructed" functional smallpox virus from raw chemicals. The "formula" was apparently declared a "state secret" and was not (widely) published.

A couple of years ago some other scientists did the same thing. Objections to having the method published caused it to be withheld (except among a few scientists) but arguments that the method of "creating" one virus could be of immense value to scientists working on many diseases and genetic defects prevailed so the method was published.

It's a little harder to find the "plan" than for the "3D P.O.S. Gun" but can be done by almost anyone. Of course doing the experiment requires a half-million dollar (US) lab setup, and it might not work on the first try, but somebody could do it.

Anthrax, ricin, and a whole bunch of other nasty things can be produced at relatively little expense and with far less technical knowledge than a virus, with the minor objection that who ever does the producing might not live to use it - but if they can make it somebody could spread it.

Any mass grave where victims of a "plague" or epidemic were buried is a potential weapon for terrorists. One such site accidentally opened for a sewer repair NINETY YEARS after the bodies were planted resulted in a relatively small but very devastating new epidemic.

ONE dead rat in a well will fairly reliably kill anyone who drinks the water if you let it soak for a week, or at least will make them sick enough to be incapacitated. A couple of dozen well selected road kill specimens in a reservoir might do the same to a small city, although for a "big plan" choosing dead animals with a particular infection might be more reliable.

For "personal attacks" an ice pick with half the handle cut off to facilitate concealment is a far more reliable weapon than the 3D printed gun, and properly used is much less likely to be detected in time to create a significant risk of capture for the "user."

An umbrella with a sharp point on it has been used for a successful assassination in which the attacker made a successful (temporary if they got the right guy) escape.

TERRORISTS DON'T DO EXPERIMENTS. They use known and tested materials and devices to get their goals accomplished. RELIABILITY is a first consideration, with effectiveness next in line, and the "printable gun" flunks both tests absolutely.

IFF it might eventually be produced as a reliable tool at a competitive cost, for terrorists or otherwise, it won't be a novelty any more and will be "just another one of them things." (And likely not a very good one.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 13 - 10:49 AM

From Wiki- not exactly hard to access worldwide...

"However, around 1846 Christian Friedrich Schönbein, a German-Swiss chemist, discovered a more practical solution. As he was working in the kitchen of his home in Basel, he spilled a bottle of concentrated nitric acid on the kitchen table. He reached for the nearest cloth, a cotton apron, and wiped it up. He hung the apron on the stove door to dry, and, as soon as it was dry, there was a flash as the apron exploded. His preparation method was the first to be widely imitated—one part of fine cotton wool to be immersed in fifteen parts of an equal blend of sulfuric and nitric acids. After two minutes, the cotton was removed and washed in cold water to set the esterification level and remove all acid residue. It was then slowly dried at a temperature below 100 °F (about 38 °C). Schönbein collaborated with the Frankfurt professor Rudolf Christian Böttger, who had discovered the process independently in the same year. By coincidence, a third chemist, the Brunswick professor F. J. Otto had also produced guncotton in 1846 and was the first to publish the process, much to the disappointment of Schönbein and Böttger.[2]
The process uses nitric acid to convert cellulose into cellulose nitrate and water:
3HNO3+ C6H10O5 → C6H7(NO2)3O5 + 3H2O
The sulfuric acid is present as a catalyst to produce the nitronium ion, NO2+. The reaction is first order and proceeds by electrophilic substitution at the C-OH centers of the cellulose.[3]
The power of guncotton made it suitable for blasting. As a projectile driver, it has around six times the gas generation of an equal volume of black powder and produces less smoke and less heating. However, the sensitivity of the material during production led the British, Prussians and French to discontinue manufacture within a year."

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Stu
Date: 09 May 13 - 11:15 AM

According to that fine upstanding organ The Grauniad, these printed guns might well kill the person that fires them.

So, give all the pro-gun, pro-dead children brigade their own printed gun, some ammo and let them blast away down the firing range. Then we'll weed out those nutters who think guns have a place in a tolerant, peaceful, civilised society. Result!

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 May 13 - 12:41 PM

Old-fashioned gunpowder-
Sulfur, charcoal and saltpetre.
Easily obtained.

The neo-terrorist has many simple formulae.

I remember we used to make explosives with calcium carbide and water (produces acetylene). Ingredients easy to obtain.
You can guess the rest. Dangerous to the terrorist, but many think they go to a special heaven when they blow the target and themselves to smithereens.

And some cleaning agents. Hydrogen peroxide and.... Ammonia and potassium permanganate ....., some common fertilizers....
Firecrackers like the Boston boys used.

And remember, the modern urban terrorist is often a citizen, so no borders are crossed. Remember Oklahoma City and the fertilizer bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 13 - 03:11 PM

The "carbide bomb" has a particularly nasty feature that if you mix the water with the carbide in a closed vessel there's some delay as the gas (ethylene) pressure builds up but at something a little over 5 or 6 hundred psi it will detonate spontaneously and very powerfully.

The name acetylene comes from the use of acetone to absorb the gas and prevent detonation at higher storage pressures.

(acetone-ethylene)

The acetone is usually held in a carbon "sponge" inside the storage tanks.

Welding shops as late as the 1930s or '40s often used "carbide generators" that dribbled the carbide into a pool of water until a "safe working pressure" was achieved. When the safety cutoff hung up, a lot of those shops just "disappeared."

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 May 13 - 09:32 PM

Smithsonian magazine, May, 2013, has an article, "The Printed World," which discusses the state of 3D printing.

The 3D Systems plant is in South Carolina. Complex 3D printers can be costly, those in use in their lab are about $170,000. Various companies make prototypes of parts for aerospace and automotive companies, complex models, orthopedic implants, orthodontics (and other medical uses including foundations for implanting cells to grow body parts), etc.

Developers dream of home 3-D printers that can reproduce broken parts such as door handles, automobile parts and a myriad of other objects.

Microsoft has announced a software release that will enable the Kinect for Windows computer sensor with the ability to quickly create detailed 3-D models of people and objects.

The ABS plastic feedstock for 3-D printers is derived from petroleum.

Add to this the laser equipment to scan the object to be created.

On the market is a cheap version, the Cube (from 3D Systems) starting at $1300 which can make cheap plastic jewelry, dolls,and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 13 - 09:54 PM

The true "industrial" printers like the one Q mentions have actually been well known and used for prototypes or "one-shot" parts for around 20 years. Most of those machines can lay down a variety of materials and are definitely not limited to plastics. The last time I had a look at one, the majority couldn't use "any metal" but could use enough different kinds to make functional parts that would hold up long enough to do some testing on the machine they got installed in.

If you recognize the similarity in processes used, even some of the earliest transistor and integrated circuit fabrication setups "used 3D printing" to some extent, so you could legitimately claim that the "principles" have been used in industry for around 70 or 75 years.

Even my wife says its hard to get excited about something that old.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing-Someday is now!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 May 13 - 01:52 AM

JotSC post of 06 May 13 - 10:26 AM "...one could make from simple gears and replacement parts for machinery to complete artificial hearts and other prosthetic devices...if not now, someday soon."

A child's life is saved by a tracheal splint to facilitate his breathing. This device was made using a 3D PRINTER according to Science Daily. The blog cites the write-up of this in the current issue New England Journal of Medicine.

I prefer to consider that this type of use of 3D is more important than moaning about the possibility of making a gun.

3D printed prosthetic

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 May 13 - 02:20 AM

There has been a fair amount of experimenting and actual use of 3D printing for medical and prosthetic devices. Neither the machines nor the materials have much similarity to the ones getting all the press.

The method has been around for decades - it's not really new. The useful things just arent' sensational enough for the news to try to blow them up.

If you're tuned into the right sources, you're likely to have seen at least one or two medical applications every month or two for the past couple of years. (But as with anything "medical" not all of them work as well - or as long - as predicted. There's still a need for better knowledge of what works best for each case.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 24 May 13 - 08:11 AM

I don't see your point, JohnSC. Of course there are huge potential benefits of 3D printing, in areas like medicine, and some are being delivered now. That's fantastic, praiseworthy and should be encouraged.

But that has no bearing on whether something needs to be done about regulating and managing potentially harmful and illegal items which can in effect be distributed this way. And since I last posted on this thread I understand the US government has said put these plans on the internet may breach US export regulations, as I remarked earlier

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 24 May 13 - 10:22 AM

I have the Anarchist's Cookbook because I wanted a copy and that's it. The idea that you're saving some kid from killing himself or killing another is a joke especially in an age where instructions and recipes for ANYTHING can be found on the internet. Everything from how to make an anthrax slurry to how to cook crystal meth is easily available and if one site gets shut down, 10 more go up to replace it.

The value of these sites and books as TACB is EDUCATE YOURSELF and screw all this misguided altruistic bullshit because bullshit is all it is. You can't fight a terrorist with a bomb or know when a house down the street is being used as a meth lab if you have no idea how to make a bomb or what kind of stuff is used to make a meth lab. Face it, before Boston Massacre II, would you have thought anything about seeing a guy walking around with a pressure cooker? The most altruistic thing you can do for society is to educate yourself. But if you think you're going to stop some kid from blowing himself up because you bought a copy of TACB, why even bother? My suggestion is that you can do a lot more good by reading the damn thing.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 26 May 13 - 06:44 AM

You can't fight a terrorist with a bomb or know when a house down the street is being used as a meth lab if you have no idea how to make a bomb or what kind of stuff is used to make a meth lab.

I beg to differ. You might as well argue that you can't identify something as a television unless you know how to make one. And anyway it seems to be your argument (and some of those above) is that the world is a dangerous place [agreed] so we might as well let it get more dangerous [disagree]

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 26 May 13 - 11:21 PM

"You might as well argue that you can't identify something as a television unless you know how to make one."

What kind of an idiot are you? Everybody has a TV and knows what the fuck a TV looks like. Most people have never seen a real homemade bomb--have you? If you found an unlabeled bomb schematic in your neighbor's house, would you know what you were looking at? Did you have ANY idea that pressure cookers were being used to house bombs before this Boston incident? You known damned well you didn't.

So these sites that tell you how to make these bombs can serve as much good as bad if you bother to peruse them so you can educate yourself.

If you saw a neighbor unloading a bunch of brake fluid or ephedrine or offered you money to buy ephedrine for him, would you call the cops? You damn well better. That's a meth lab in the making and it will render that house toxic and worse, if your house is anywhere close to it, YOUR house will also be made toxic. So, yes, you'd damn well better call the cops to protect yourself and your neighborhood. If you see a house with dead grass, dead trees in the yard, dead animals nearby, it's probably a meth lab although it's probably too late to save your property but you can at least save yourself. I learned this by reading online how to make meth. The authors warn people not to try it unless they have learned it from someone who has done it and that you must have experience working in labs. It's helpful to know, it might just save your life.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: DMcG
Date: 27 May 13 - 02:02 AM

"You might as well argue that you can't identify something as a television unless you know how to make one."

What kind of an idiot are you?

The kind that understands there is a big difference being recognising something and being able to make it.

Subject: RE: BS: 3D Gun printing
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 27 May 13 - 11:26 AM

It's not being able to make it that worries me. It's the idiot who doesn't know how to make it but is going to try it anyway that is really scary. The kid next door building a bomb in his basement who knows what he's doing doesn't scare me anywhere close to the stupid hack who wants to do it because that would so cool! He's going to take out half the neighborhood before the other kid does. A kid who thinks he's going to make money manufacturing his own meth in the basement having no understanding that he's going to be creating 6-7 lbs of lethally toxic waste for every pound of meth he manages to produce is way scarier than guys experienced at setting up a meth lab.