Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Nmaro Makari on 04 Nov 2013, 13:17
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/2/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/2/)
So a couple of things strike me about this.
A) 3D Printers are epic.
B) This is going to be the next big thing in national security issues.
C) the guy behind it is an arrogant kid who spends to much time on infowars.com
I mean yes, it's an impressive technical achievement (or more accurately, achievement under construction), but the single minded way in which this guy seems to be trying to arm everyone and believes that all government is equivalent to Nazi occupied France is just a bit "slow down there Alex Jones"
-
inb4 massive political argument.
Scientifically speaking, it's fascinating how much these 3D printers can create. A bit disturbing, but fascinating! I've been thinking a few of you model army painters should be printing EVE ships and painting them for your countertops and such.
-
Time to write letters to the Kommandantur. :evil:
-
inb4 massive political argument.
Scientifically speaking, it's fascinating how much these 3D printers can create. A bit disturbing, but fascinating! I've been thinking a few of you model army painters should be printing EVE ships and painting them for your countertops and such.
Two Step usually makes a bunch and hands them out at the Boston EVE meetups.
He's brought a variety of ships - Aeons, Archons, Atrons, Bestowers, Machariels, Talos, and he even had the "fake" star destroyer-esque "Nestor" from an early Rubicon build at the last one.
-
Many, many, many 40k and other mini game enthusiasts are waiting for the exact price point where it becomes worthwhile to do this, as far as purchasing the home printer and the materials.
When you think about it that a good sized 40k army can easily run you hundreds and hundreds of dollars, that point is approaching very fast.
Considering how much games workshop overchrages for bits of molded plastic I can't wait.
Also the infowars guy is certifiable.
3d printing guns is in the end pretty stupid considering it takes 0 effort to purchase a normal weapon that won't melt after firing a few clips. It's not as if it's difficult to obtain a weapon here.
-
I'm not terribly worried about 3d printers printing shitty plastic guns. I'll start with that once they've advanced enough to print bullets.
-
I'm not too worried. People are freaking out because they're saying you won't know who has a gun anymore if they can just download a pattern off the Internet and print it on a 3d printer.
And if there are two things the government has no way of knowing, it's what we download on the Internet and what we buy...
-
Tbh with the number of guns in circulation in the US, a few plastic guns is not going to change the root of the issue, it just feels like a tree hiding the forest...
-
Now, what's the stance of the gun lobby on this one? I'm pretty sure cheap guns for everyone would be pretty bad for the economy. 8)
-
Political issues aside, I believe one serious issue actual law enforcement people are concerned about is that (in the US at least) the serial number of any given firearm is often stamped only on the external case (or, more rarely, specific internal sub-components) of the receiver - not all of which are readily susceptible to damage from firing. So while 3D printers don't really threaten to put a whole bunch more guns on the market, they might potentially make one of the few good means of tracing existing firearms rather more troublesome.
-
I'll start with that once they've advanced enough to print bullets.
So, you are already worried about western farmers with machine shops and access to lead, brass, and powder?
It is not as if the technology to produce a cartridge (or assault rifle) is particular hard to acquire/produce, it is mid-19th century tech.
-
I think the danger here is that now a gun that looks like it's made of plastic could actually kill someone. With painted exceptions, formerly, if someone pointed an orange and blue and white plastic and vaguely gun shaped thing at you, your first response is probably that it's a water squirt gun or some other toy.
Then a very real bullet hits you.
Once a few cops get shot with these things, we can probably expect police to draw their very real weapons on a kid pointing a squirt gun - out of fear that it might be a printed gun.
In other words, with printed custom guns, shape and color recognition go right out the window. It's not so much that they can make a gun, it's that they can make a gun we won't recognize until it's too late.
-
If people really want a gun, it's not hard to make one. You don't need a 3d printer. You need a basic understanding of tools and chemistry. Sure, you won't be turning out an M60, but a lethal ranged weapon? Certainly.
-
I think the danger here is that now a gun that looks like it's made of plastic could actually kill someone. With painted exceptions, formerly, if someone pointed an orange and blue and white plastic and vaguely gun shaped thing at you, your first response is probably that it's a water squirt gun or some other toy.
Then a very real bullet hits you.
Once a few cops get shot with these things, we can probably expect police to draw their very real weapons on a kid pointing a squirt gun - out of fear that it might be a printed gun.
In other words, with printed custom guns, shape and color recognition go right out the window. It's not so much that they can make a gun, it's that they can make a gun we won't recognize until it's too late.
Oddly enough, plastic guns exist. In fact, they've existed for decades. Even more in fact, your standard issue pistol now isn't made out of metal, it's made largely out of plastic. Most in factly, if you see a police officer in America carrying a standard issue pistol, it's very likely to be a plastic gun.
They were made for a while, but were popularized by Austrian Glock pistols. Glock actually had zero firearms experience when they released their first guns. They were a plastics company, so they built the gun with a plastic frame. I remember, vaguely as a child, hearing that there were plastic guns that would be invisible to metal detectors. I didn't find out until later that they were talking about Glocks (there are enough metal parts, like the barrel and firing pin, that it will still set a metal detector off). Even the 3d printed gun needs a nail to act as a firing pin.
The difference is that a Glock is an insanely durable weapon, and they have some insane stress tests online showing them being beaten to Hell and back, then still firing and cycling correctly. The 3d printed gun they have now can fire, but not well. It's an exceptionally poor gun, though they may someday make it worth something. As it stands, though, you can paint any real gun funny colors and make a fake gun look real. I don't think that is the problem.
I think, if anything, people are afraid of them because there's no paper trail. In America, not having a paper trail on a gun can vary from state to state, and some people literally can swap guns without changing paperwork in certain states. Elsewhere, people want to know who has what kind of guns on their property (imagine that!) so the idea of being able to print out a gun without registering, needing a license, needing to pass a mental health assessment, or needing to have your criminal record checked kind of sets people on edge.
Which it probably should, considering the gun is smoothbore and thus also has no identifying rifling marks to examine during a ballistics test. So not only can you fabricate a gun without any regulation, but then it'd be almost impossible to prove that the bullet came from the gun you fired.
Thankfully, for now, it's fairly easy to get hold of a real gun and the 3d printed one is a piece of shit.
-
The 3d printed gun they have now can fire, but not well. It's an exceptionally poor gun, though they may someday make it worth something. As it stands, though, you can paint any real gun funny colors and make a fake gun look real. I don't think that is the problem.
I was unclear, but I meant more the shape than the color. Having wild tyedye colors (can you do that?) and an odd shape might make someone not realize it's a gun at all. This is my point. A box shaped 'gun' won't show up as anything suspicious on an x-ray scan at the airport. An airplane shaped one could be hidden in with a bunch of children's toys. It could be given to a toddler to carry (sans bullet) into a courtroom with the bullet inside the shoe (that has a metal buckle). There's all sorts of new and devious ways to sneak them around without being detected, in ways that you can't do with current guns that aren't spring-and-nail toilet paper reels.
The point is that a lot of these basic gun recognition tropes we take for granted right now - the shape, the weight, the metal, the color... all of that is thrown out the window. The only part that remains the same is the bullet. If you can't even recognize the firing device reliably... well isn't that a bigger problem than paper trails?
-
Which it probably should, considering the gun is smoothbore and thus also has no identifying rifling marks to examine during a ballistics test. So not only can you fabricate a gun without any regulation, but then it'd be almost impossible to prove that the bullet came from the gun you fired.
Warfare with smoothbore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothbore) fire arms:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/21/article-1288245-0A1F086D000005DC-242_964x466.jpg)
Waterloo
(http://2nc.org/albums/2006reenactmentseason/images/IMG_1366(1).JPG_fl.jpg)
Yorktown
The 3d printed gun they have now can fire, but not well. It's an exceptionally poor gun, though they may someday make it worth something. As it stands, though, you can paint any real gun funny colors and make a fake gun look real. I don't think that is the problem.
I was unclear, but I meant more the shape than the color. Having wild tyedye colors (can you do that?) and an odd shape might make someone not realize it's a gun at all. This is my point. It won't show up as anything suspicious on an x-ray scan at the airport. It could be hidden in with a box of children's toys. It could be given to a toddler to carry (sans bullet) into a courtroom with the bullet inside the shoe (that has a metal buckle).
The point is that a lot of these basic gun recognition tropes we take for granted right now - the shape, the weight, the metal, the color... all of that is thrown out the window. The only part that remains the same is the bullet. If you can't even recognize the firing device reliably... well isn't that a bigger problem than paper trails?
I reality we were already taking those for granted.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/1-17-08-hk_ar-15.jpg)
That is an actual AR-15, not a toy. I had a toy M-16 in 1992 that looked more real than that (Chocolate Chip Camo and everything!).
(http://media.techeblog.com/images/unusualguns_3.jpg)
Classic disguise for a submachine gun.
As far as weight - well, one of the biggest drivers for infantry weapons is weight and manufactures continually work to reduce the weight of the weapon (which allows the infantryman to carry more stuff like bullets, batteries, and water).
-
The 3d printed gun they have now can fire, but not well. It's an exceptionally poor gun, though they may someday make it worth something. As it stands, though, you can paint any real gun funny colors and make a fake gun look real. I don't think that is the problem.
I was unclear, but I meant more the shape than the color. Having wild tyedye colors (can you do that?) and an odd shape might make someone not realize it's a gun at all. This is my point. A box shaped 'gun' won't show up as anything suspicious on an x-ray scan at the airport. An airplane shaped one could be hidden in with a bunch of children's toys. It could be given to a toddler to carry (sans bullet) into a courtroom with the bullet inside the shoe (that has a metal buckle). There's all sorts of new and devious ways to sneak them around without being detected, in ways that you can't do with current guns that aren't spring-and-nail toilet paper reels.
The point is that a lot of these basic gun recognition tropes we take for granted right now - the shape, the weight, the metal, the color... all of that is thrown out the window. The only part that remains the same is the bullet. If you can't even recognize the firing device reliably... well isn't that a bigger problem than paper trails?
You can certainly tie-dye a gun! And that... would be the wierdest thing I will have ever seen.
Hey, I used the future perfect tense!
You weren't really unclear, I think people have this image of "a gun" and that's sort of what they expect. In reality, guns come in a nearly limitless variety of shapes, sizes, and styles. The first bullpup assault rifle, the Steyr AUG, is probably more recognizable to most people from movies that used it as a laser gun prop. It looked funky. The FN P90 by Fabrique Nationale looks like someone took a router to a piece of 2x6 lumber and used it to make a black plastic toy. It used to be fairly common for walking sticks to actually be loaded, single-shot guns. Spies have been building guns into pens for decades, even. I can't remember who for the life of me, but I remember someone being assassinated in Britain by having a ricin pellet fired into his leg from an umbrella.
I think a problem you're touching on is that, up until fairly recently, these kinds of things were actually illegal to own and possess. Some states have statutes on the books to make them illegal, but the U.S. has no national ban on weapons that look like other things. Likewise, most toy guns that look even moderately real come with a giant, orange tip on the end that alerts people that the gun isn't real. In fact, it's getting harder to get toy guns that look real. I remember having a few as a kid that looked somewhat genuine. I think some toy companies were worried that they might be "encouraging violent behavior."
It didn't do me any harm, but kids these days....
Anyway, for right now, I don't think the shape or style of the gun is going to be too much of an issue because they've made guns already that break all the rules. What you might be getting at that would be a serious problem are guns made to look like things that are not, in any way, shape, or form, guns. At least you'd need to be a pretty competent gunsmith to build a working gun out of a tape dispenser. If you can model anything, in 3d, from plastic and you can get a working gun, you can just 3d print a gun that looks like a pen, or a coffee thermos, or a smartphone. All of those would have to be fairly thick to accommodate even a .22 LR, but 3d printing heralds the end of the artisan.
That might be more of a problem. If anyone can simply produce anything and they don't need to go to a specialist, like a gunsmith, those kinds of weapons might become an awful lot more common. And they might look very, very convincing.
-
Likewise, most toy guns that look even moderately real come with a giant, orange tip on the end that alerts people that the gun isn't real. In fact, it's getting harder to get toy guns that look real. I remember having a few as a kid that looked somewhat genuine. I think some toy companies were worried that they might be "encouraging violent behavior."
It didn't do me any harm, but kids these days....
I think it may have more to do with the reaction of police when a real looking firearm toy is pointed at them, ie shooting the holder/child.
-
I kind of figured that, Orange. The point we're making is that guns already don't always look like guns. I think that's more of an issue of a toy really closely resembling a real gun, and the police having to unfortunately assume that even a 13 year old kid can get a hold of an assault rifle and will use it at will. I'm not sure the untraceable gun will have that much of an effect on that particular kind of case.
Since we're posting pictures...
The aforementioned Steyr AUG
(http://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/13795/large_f816fe03-7ec8-41d1-b616-bad9e48935ad.png)
and aforementioned FN P90
(http://www.military-today.com/firearms/fn_p90_l3.jpg)
-
What you might be getting at that would be a serious problem are guns made to look like things that are not, in any way, shape, or form, guns. At least you'd need to be a pretty competent gunsmith to build a working gun out of a tape dispenser. If you can model anything, in 3d, from plastic and you can get a working gun, you can just 3d print a gun that looks like a pen, or a coffee thermos, or a smartphone. All of those would have to be fairly thick to accommodate even a .22 LR, but 3d printing heralds the end of the artisan.
That might be more of a problem. If anyone can simply produce anything and they don't need to go to a specialist, like a gunsmith, those kinds of weapons might become an awful lot more common. And they might look very, very convincing [resembling a harmless item].
As I read the start and middle of your post, I got frustrated because I felt you were completely missing my point a second time around. Then I got to the quoted part and breathed a sigh of relief. You do understand what worries me!
The examples of strange looking actual firearms doesn't really hold relevance to what I'm saying. Those are weapons developed by major defense contractors and firearm corporations, and have had billions of dollars in testing poured into them. Despite all that, they aren't easy to hide and most security agents will still recognize them as weapons. The Hello Kitty AR-15 is also a shitty disguise. If a TSA agent sees one of those things on X-Ray, you're going in a jail cell.
But what about something that had all of 2 days work put into it, printed out in your home office, and disguised to look like an electric pencil sharpener (complete with the power cord, paint and hole, and even a salvaged grinding wheel in case x-ray looks inside)? I hope you folks are realizing how easy it's going to be to make a fully functional spy gun. This isn't MI6 or the CIA making them. This is homegrown terrorist John Doe in his garage with some tools and a 3D printer. They'll come in all shapes and sizes, and recognizing them for what they are will quickly become difficult with current security checks.
EDIT: Before anyone rips me a new one for referencing dirty terrorists - I'm sorry. I felt Republican even posting this, but for the first time I am legitimately concerned.
-
As I read the start and middle of your post, I got frustrated because I felt you were completely missing my point a second time around. Then I got to the quoted part and breathed a sigh of relief. You do understand what worries me!
Yeah, I totally get that. I mean, that kind of thing worries me. It's already sort of easy to get a gun around here and hide it. In Ohio at least (I'm not sure if it's nationwide) it's illegal to carry a firearm into a place that serves alcohol and they very often search you at nightclubs and bars. But will security check everything? Including things that won't look anything like a gun? What if a woman gets drunk, decides some other woman has crossed the line, and shoots her with a fake tube of lipstick?
It sounds ludicrous and stupid, and even when I write it, it sounds like I'm taking the piss. But that's exactly the kind of thing that happens stateside.
-
So, does that mean that:
1) No one should be allowed to own and access a 3-D printer without a background check or an entire legal regime created which makes owning/operating a printer not worth it for the individual (hard to implement considering that some printers are built out of parts from a hardware store)?
2) We should live entirely monitored* lives, in which any minor act that violates a law (or is conspiracy to violate a law), can and will result in fining or arrest?
*Monitored is different than transparent. Monitored means that only a "special group" has access to the information, while transparency means anyone has access to the information.
-
Neither, honestly.
I think we'll just need to come to terms with the fact that "gun control" may no longer be feasible.
We may just have to learn self control as a species. For example, in the Roman Empire... was there sword control? What about in the Dark or Middle ages? Were swords and gunpowder weapons so tightly controlled in the Renaissance or Colonial history? This concerns me not because 'anyone can have guns', because anyone already can. What concerns me is what ramifications this will have on the legal and political scene. What worries me is the gross irresponsibility that will be shown not just by 'printed gun' owners, but by the politicians and courts that will attempt to combat them.
These new developments don't herald the end of days or violent revolution. They don't herald a new age of freedom and/or civil liberties.
They herald a very bitter battle between government and the people as both struggle to accept the reality of danger and contradiction of impossible regulation under current constitutional rights.
EDIT:
Try this on for size. Our government shut down for sixteen days, because of a political debate over healthcare.
What do you think the politicians and lobbying groups will do once the fight over this begins in earnest?
-
(http://saturdaynightscreening.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/existenz-gun.jpg)
-
So, does that mean that:
1) No one should be allowed to own and access a 3-D printer without a background check or an entire legal regime created which makes owning/operating a printer not worth it for the individual (hard to implement considering that some printers are built out of parts from a hardware store)?
2) We should live entirely monitored* lives, in which any minor act that violates a law (or is conspiracy to violate a law), can and will result in fining or arrest?
*Monitored is different than transparent. Monitored means that only a "special group" has access to the information, while transparency means anyone has access to the information.
The problem nowadays is that solution number 1 isn't feasible, and solution number 2 has been the normal state of affairs for about a decade. That's why this whole NSA thing can only get indifference out of me. I've figured the government has been monitoring every bit of my communications since the Patriot Act. I also figure they're probably the least threatening of the thousands, if not millions, of entities trying to get my information online.
The world's just a different place. All they can do is toughen the laws they have. Right now, committing a crime with a gun, any crime with a gun, adds an automatic year to any sentence. I think the government definitely needs a registry of who owns what and I think, to own and carry a gun, you should be licensed. You should need to renew it every year, proving to the governing body that you can fire it accurately and know gun safety protocols. The government should have the ability to revoke your license to carry and even own them if you become mentally unstable or if you're convicted of using them in a crime. A police officer should be able to, on noticing you carrying a weapon, walk over and ask to see if it's licensed.
I mean, we do it for cars, and those aren't usually built to kill people.
-
Something none of us had yet considered:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.533753 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.533753)
The staff of the Channel 10 television program "Tzinor Layla" (Nightline) printed a pistol on camera using a 3-D printer and twice managed to get it into the Knesset building in Jerusalem.
A reporter on the program even managed to get within a few meters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plastic pistol was tested in a firing range under the supervision of a former police commissioner, and successfully fired a live bullet at a cardboard target.
For all the problems associated with Israel, when they think you have a security problem, you have a security problem.
-
We may just have to learn self control as a species. For example, in the Roman Empire... was there sword control? What about in the Dark or Middle ages? Were swords and gunpowder weapons so tightly controlled in the Renaissance or Colonial history?
Little rusty on the specifics but a tentative yes to all of those.
Off the top of my head I recall that only certain people were allowed to carry a drawn sword in London (to do so un-permitted was a punishable offence), and sometime in the 1600s there was a Law enacted stating specifically that only Parliament, not the King, could pass laws regarding armament.
-
In the UK, this is already possible, afaik:
1. Buy fireworks over the counter.
2. Buy those toy cap-guns and similar toy fireworks, that use percussion explosives.
3. Make very crude and dangerous bullets out of household junk, using the percussion things to ignite the powder poured out of dismantled fireworks.
Step 4, is what this 3-D printer thing allows, with less technical skill than before.
4. Make a crude and dangerous firearm that will fire the handmade bullets.
5. CRIME
step 4, with these 3-d printer things, is what has been difficult in the past - requiring some machinery that might arouse suspicion. A 3-d printer, it is easier to claim "oh, just making toys, innit mate?".
The thing with metal detectors and all that, has implications for democracy, as regards being able to go to a member of parliaments office and ask them things. If these weapons mean that access to politicians becomes harder, then that is a problem.
How can a politician be a representative of their constituency, if the people of that constituency cannot meet with them ?
-
In the UK, this is already possible, afaik:
1. Buy fireworks over the counter.
2. Buy those toy cap-guns and similar toy fireworks, that use percussion explosives.
3. Make very crude and dangerous bullets out of household junk, using the percussion things to ignite the powder poured out of dismantled fireworks.
Step 4, is what this 3-D printer thing allows, with less technical skill than before.
4. Make a crude and dangerous firearm that will fire the handmade bullets.
5. CRIME
step 4, with these 3-d printer things, is what has been difficult in the past - requiring some machinery that might arouse suspicion. A 3-d printer, it is easier to claim "oh, just making toys, innit mate?".
The thing with metal detectors and all that, has implications for democracy, as regards being able to go to a member of parliaments office and ask them things. If these weapons mean that access to politicians becomes harder, then that is a problem.
How can a politician be a representative of their constituency, if the people of that constituency cannot meet with them ?
Luckily, we've got some time before that becomes a major issue. At present, 3d printed guns do not fire very well, nor can they fire very powerful ammunition even when they do. When they're 3d printing something that's dangerous beyond twenty feet or so, we can start to panic.
-
Maybe.
In the UK anyway, the gun crime problem, there's far bigger issues with:
Replica conversions. Re-activation of defunct firearms. Smuggling of weapons from E.Europe.
Periodically, a newspaper will run a story about how it was "Easy to obtain a firearm from criminals, for low prices". Usually London crime gangs. Sometimes figures are quoted, often they are like "£50 to rent the gun, £400 if you shoot it". Which is not all that much compared to other things.
It's why some armed crimes are hard to solve - if the firearm is one that has been passed around in this manner, it may appear that the same people committed both crimes, which can send investigations in the wrong direction.
-
Obvious solution: issue every criminal Londoner a personalized firearm.
-
Maybe.
In the UK anyway, the gun crime problem, there's far bigger issues with:
Replica conversions. Re-activation of defunct firearms. Smuggling of weapons from E.Europe.
Periodically, a newspaper will run a story about how it was "Easy to obtain a firearm from criminals, for low prices". Usually London crime gangs. Sometimes figures are quoted, often they are like "£50 to rent the gun, £400 if you shoot it". Which is not all that much compared to other things.
It's why some armed crimes are hard to solve - if the firearm is one that has been passed around in this manner, it may appear that the same people committed both crimes, which can send investigations in the wrong direction.
Jesus, that's cheap? That's essentially 800 dollars to shoot someone.
I think here in the states, you can buy a .22 from the street for like 100 or 200 dollars.
-
I think those 3-D printed guns might get a lot more problematic for countries like in Western Europe, than in the US where guns are omnipresent and where the worst issue from what I read would more be an issue of traceability...
-
Obvious solution: issue every criminal Londoner a personalized firearm.
Hell no.
-
I think those 3-D printed guns might get a lot more problematic for countries like in Western Europe, than in the US where guns are omnipresent and where the worst issue from what I read would more be an issue of traceability...
Might be. Then again, the problems they'd be having in Europe are problems here stateside, we just kind of deal with it and keep our heads down (sometimes literally).
They may not be cheaper now, but they might be in the future. To a 3d printer, there's no difference between making a spatula or a gun, just the cost of the raw resins and plastics. So, essentially, a gun could end up being no more expensive than anything else. That might put people in the same boat we're in here, where I think knife crime is still a more prevalent problem in Britain than gun crime.