 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 3D Gun printing
|
|
|
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. (acet 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. |
