Even if you're pro-gun, I think teenagers being able to print guns out in their own living-room is terrifying. What do you think?
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
3D Printable Guns
- Thread starter PlayboyMegan
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
Even if you're pro-gun, I think teenagers being able to print guns out in their own living-room is terrifying. What do you think?
NoelleBright
Inactive Cam Model
I haven't watched this video yet, but I actually listened to an interview with this guy on the radio a few months ago.
Since I haven't watched the video, I'm not sure if they stated this in there, but the weapons that his company (http://defensedistributed.com/) are planning on creating are only capable of firing one round of ammunition. So after you fire it once, it's really not capable of being used again. I know that one bullet can kill, but they aren't designed as to where you can print one and then go on a shooting rampage with it.
Also, I know 0 people with a 3d printer.
A quick check around the internet shows me that 3d printers cost a lot of damn money. For the money you would spend on the actual printer, you could go and get a gun that is capable of firing more than one round.
If someone wanted a gun, there are wayyyy easier ways of getting one than this.
Since I haven't watched the video, I'm not sure if they stated this in there, but the weapons that his company (http://defensedistributed.com/) are planning on creating are only capable of firing one round of ammunition. So after you fire it once, it's really not capable of being used again. I know that one bullet can kill, but they aren't designed as to where you can print one and then go on a shooting rampage with it.
Also, I know 0 people with a 3d printer.
A quick check around the internet shows me that 3d printers cost a lot of damn money. For the money you would spend on the actual printer, you could go and get a gun that is capable of firing more than one round.
If someone wanted a gun, there are wayyyy easier ways of getting one than this.
Everything starts out expensive and not very good. Then someone makes it cheaper, and better quality. The video is about the future. I believe anyone that owns a printer now, will own a 3D printer in 10 years.NoelleBright said:
And I think you need to watch the video since they talked about firing 600 rounds no problem.
NoelleBright
Inactive Cam Model
I don't know how old that is, but I believe they just uploaded a video of them successfully firing 600 rounds with no complications about a week ago?NoelleBright said:
NoelleBright
Inactive Cam Model
PlayboyMegan said:
I'll check it out when I have time later.
That's a pretty crazy jump, I heard his interview in October where he stated they will only be able to be fired once.
Being able to be fired hundreds of times is definitely different than a gun that would only fire once.
A lot of the emphasis right seems to be on the AR magazines. Those were most likely going to be on the ban list. With the current technology of plastic used in the 3D printers I wouldn't trust it to a full firearm. But magazines are a different story.
This site started hosting all the gun related CAD files that were submitted to the mainstream 3D printing sites after they were banned there. The AR-15 magazine on there simply needs to have a spring purchased and the rest of the parts can be printed and assembled. There's also a single large zip file that can be downloaded so if for some reason the site gets shut down the files are out there.
[edit]http://defcad.org/browse/ turns out this site is arrived at by clicking a link on the site listed above. Same thing. so just ignore this one [end edit]
It's true that a lot of the 3D printers are somewhat expensive there are kits available if you're willing to assemble it yourself. There are several starting at the $500 to $800 range if you search for kits.
http://store.solidoodle.com/
Personally I come from a family that taught us gun safety. We went hunting from an early age. Believe in the right to arm ourselves for several reasons. As might be expected I have several varieties of weaponry. So, I'm rather okay with this development. Somewhat happy about it in fact.
This site started hosting all the gun related CAD files that were submitted to the mainstream 3D printing sites after they were banned there. The AR-15 magazine on there simply needs to have a spring purchased and the rest of the parts can be printed and assembled. There's also a single large zip file that can be downloaded so if for some reason the site gets shut down the files are out there.
[edit]http://defcad.org/browse/ turns out this site is arrived at by clicking a link on the site listed above. Same thing. so just ignore this one [end edit]
It's true that a lot of the 3D printers are somewhat expensive there are kits available if you're willing to assemble it yourself. There are several starting at the $500 to $800 range if you search for kits.
http://store.solidoodle.com/
Personally I come from a family that taught us gun safety. We went hunting from an early age. Believe in the right to arm ourselves for several reasons. As might be expected I have several varieties of weaponry. So, I'm rather okay with this development. Somewhat happy about it in fact.
I know a normal color laser printer used to be at least $2000. Now its runs about $200 with better quality.PlayboyMegan said:
They've done a lot of modifying to their schematic. They've gone from printing direct reproductions of the non-printed parts to beefing up key spots to reduce failure tremendously. In one interview Cody Wilson even mentioned that they can use cheaper plastic with the modified schematics and still get a level of durability that is cost prohibitive for them to test due to the cost of ammunition.NoelleBright said:I'll check it out when I have time later.
That's a pretty crazy jump, I heard his interview in October where he stated they will only be able to be fired once.
Being able to be fired hundreds of times is definitely different than a gun that would only fire once.
There's definitely some startling consequences of this technology being used for this purpose and the rapid evolution from gimmick to realistic that we're seeing. I don't think we're far from the most traceable part of a firearm being the ammunition.
Mirra said:
And even ammunition is highly suspect as to its trace-ability. Currently there's a couple methods for doing that. Obviously barrel groove marks put on the bullet as it is fired. And there's also tracking that could be done at the manufacturer level (e.g. serial numbers on the casing, powder composition, bullet chemical components).
But if the technology progresses to the point where the barrel itself could be printed and cheaply replaced then grooves become meaningless. Obviously a criminal could do the deed, melt down the barrel and print a new one immediately. And people that are familiar with reloading are already past the tracing of the rounds since they bypass the manufacturer. Give me some used lead from a car shop that does tire balancing and I can make you a bullet any day of the week.
Shaun__ said:
Oh yeah, this reminded me of the other aspect of 3D printing that's also made big headway recently. (excuse the pun, I just couldn't resist myself)
3D printed skulls going into patients now.
http://singularityhub.com/2013/03/2...inted-implant-to-replace-75-percent-of-skull/
PlayboyMegan said:
I'll replace the word "teenagers" with "people". Using the word "teenagers" is like making the statement "I think <children> being able to <buy alcohol at the corner store> is <horrible>." Should adults not be able to buy alcohol at their corner store?
As the New York Times columnist in the video mentions, the phrasing can turn the reporting of fact into sensationalism. The columnist, Nick Bilton, at one point delved into a little sensationalism of his own by referring to 3D printers and stating "The people that are interested in them are teenagers." This despite the fact that all of the 3D printing companies are run by adults and that thousands of adult makers and many large companies (most large manufacturing companies) use 3D printing, if only for prototyping.
Back to the OP's question, with my word replacement:
modified question said:
I'm all for people being able to use 3D printing to produce anything they want. The predicted level of technology, where almost anything can be printed at home, is wonderful. Sure, some people will print guns or other things some people might not like (bongs, sex toys, perfect replicas of trademarked action figures, etc.), but the act of printing something for personal use, even firearms, does not seem to me to be inherently wrong.
Since the OP's question is clearly about guns, though, and not, for example, patent infringement, a different approach might be to ask about the use of guns. Whether a gun is printed at home, bought from a licensed dealer, stolen, purchased on the black market, or obtained in some other manner, I think the larger question is how can we help people to think and act in a rational, benevolent manner and not use violence to harm others.
spikyhaired said:
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Kids buying alcohol IS horrible. Adults should be able to buy alcohol, children should not.
I appreciate the OP pointing out my lack of explanation after my example.PlayboyMegan said:
I think the OP's statement of opinion is perfectly valid as a personal opinion. Different people find different things "terrifying".
My example of phrasing with the use of alcohol and children was intended to highlight that I felt the OP's statement was, whether intentional or not, a sensationalist statement intended to elicit strong reactions from people based upon a false generalization.
I'll use my prior subjects of children and alcohol to explain how a false generalization works. I can imagine a prohibitionist (someone who does not believe alcohol should be legal for anyone) making an argument that the availability of alcohol to anyone (i.e. adults) puts children at risk. The prohibitionist might then suggest no one should have access to alcohol in order to "protect the children".
By posing such a false generalization, that if alcohol is available to anyone it will hurt children, the prohibitionist can try to control the debate about alcohol by saying anyone who wants alcohol to be available (to adults) is anti-children. Such a statement by the prohibitionist would be a incorrect (that is, based upon the false generalization), but it makes for catchy sound bites on the evening news programs ("Senator Smith's continued stance against prohibition shows all of us how little he cares for the welfare of children!")
The OP made no such general claim, however. I am only attempting to explain why I used an example of children and alcohol. I intended my comparison to serve as an example of why I changed the OP's original statement (which included the word "teenagers") to use the more neutral word "people".
As I stated previously, I support people being able to use 3D printers to print anything they want. My opinion is that we should not focus on what is being printed but instead focus on helping people to be better people and to have the emotional maturity to act responsibly, whether they are acting with firearms, alcohol, fatty foods, their personal finances, or anything else.
I would appreciate it if "the member" would call me by my name, Megan and actually address me. :roll:
It's very condescending, "member."
It's very condescending, "member."
:lol: :sign5: :thumbup:PlayboyMegan said:
Frantically looking back to make sure I didn't call megan OP.
Well OP ( 
), I'm not really pro-gun, nor am I anti-gun, but I agree that the idea of teenagers being able to print working guns that potentially nobody would know they have (if the parents are not paying attention) is terrifying. Hell, the idea of my son being a teenager one day and *attempting* to print a 3D gun is almost more than I can comprehend. I do say attempt though, because as his parent, it's my job to step in and intervene long before he ever got to the actual printing of said gun.
All that said, I thought the idea was pretty cool (hell, I think 3D printers are pretty cool in general) but that was when I thought they only fired one bullet, but after watching the video and seeing that he was able to shoot 600 rounds without issue, well that's more than a bit alarming.
), I'm not really pro-gun, nor am I anti-gun, but I agree that the idea of teenagers being able to print working guns that potentially nobody would know they have (if the parents are not paying attention) is terrifying. Hell, the idea of my son being a teenager one day and *attempting* to print a 3D gun is almost more than I can comprehend. I do say attempt though, because as his parent, it's my job to step in and intervene long before he ever got to the actual printing of said gun. All that said, I thought the idea was pretty cool (hell, I think 3D printers are pretty cool in general) but that was when I thought they only fired one bullet, but after watching the video and seeing that he was able to shoot 600 rounds without issue, well that's more than a bit alarming.
AllisonWilder said:Well OP (
Just to add a different perspective to this. There's quite a few videos and plans already on the internet how to make guns rather easily. Given $25 and an hour trip to a hardware store I could make a 12 gauge zip gun or a .22 pistol. Probably both with change leftover.
The possibility of easily making guns using a printer is new, but making guns easily yourself is old. If a child is so inclined to make one there's other ways of accomplishing that goal right now.
JerryBoBerry said:AllisonWilder said:Well OP (
Just to add a different perspective to this. There's quite a few videos and plans already on the internet how to make guns rather easily. Given $25 and an hour trip to a hardware store I could make a 12 gauge zip gun or a .22 pistol. Probably both with change leftover.
The possibility of easily making guns using a printer is new, but making guns easily yourself is old.
Yes, it's been possible for a while, but the anonymity of the internet (for ordering supplies) is the only part that worries me. If a 13 year old walks into a hardware store and proceeds to check out with all the items needed to make a gun at home, well, that *should* raise some red flags for the cashier thus making it harder to accomplish the task.
Airwolfe said:
Uhm, you didn't read any of the articles or watch any of the videos did you? Yes, you can. They have already been out and done. We're past that point. We're now to the point of making them better, more variety and cheaper.
Here's the 3D printer files for guns, and gun parts.
http://defcad.org/defcad-mega-pack/
Legally speaking the government classifies the Lower Receiver Unit of the AR-15 as 'the gun.' It is the only thing tracked and requiring a background check. All other parts for the AR are able to be ordered over the internet and shipped right to your home with no check. The plans for lower receivers are included in there too. And those are working now as well and easily edited to include an extra hole to make them fully automatic firing.
Megan,
No condescension intended. I often use distancing language when discussing volatile topics in public in order to avoid conflating the topics and positions with the debaters and thereby giving offense or turning a public debate into a bi-lateral conversation other people don't want to interrupt. Clearly it had the opposite impact in this instance.
I guess my question, to Megan and everyone else, is "If you find 3D printing of firearms worrying, what about it worries you?"
I equate the use of 3D printers with anything else in a home that is potentially dangerous. The chemicals under the sink or in the garage, the gasoline for the lawn mower, knives from the kitchen, matches, and the family car can all cause a lot of damage. Today there are thousands (millions?) of families with guns in the household.
I assume families will raise their children to know right from wrong, and safe from dangerous, and I don't worry what people (teenagers or adults) will do with potentially dangerous things. Just like power tools or a store-bought gun, if a household purchases a (mythical future 3D printer that can create all the components of an actual gun in a short period of time), I assume adults should be responsible for themselves and, if they have children, the adults will teach the children safe use of the device or limit the children's access to it.
So, everyone, if it worries you, why does it?
Thanks,
Spiky
No condescension intended. I often use distancing language when discussing volatile topics in public in order to avoid conflating the topics and positions with the debaters and thereby giving offense or turning a public debate into a bi-lateral conversation other people don't want to interrupt. Clearly it had the opposite impact in this instance.
I guess my question, to Megan and everyone else, is "If you find 3D printing of firearms worrying, what about it worries you?"
I equate the use of 3D printers with anything else in a home that is potentially dangerous. The chemicals under the sink or in the garage, the gasoline for the lawn mower, knives from the kitchen, matches, and the family car can all cause a lot of damage. Today there are thousands (millions?) of families with guns in the household.
I assume families will raise their children to know right from wrong, and safe from dangerous, and I don't worry what people (teenagers or adults) will do with potentially dangerous things. Just like power tools or a store-bought gun, if a household purchases a (mythical future 3D printer that can create all the components of an actual gun in a short period of time), I assume adults should be responsible for themselves and, if they have children, the adults will teach the children safe use of the device or limit the children's access to it.
So, everyone, if it worries you, why does it?
Thanks,
Spiky
Thank you for your apology, Spiky.spikyhaired said:Megan,
No condescension intended. I often use distancing language when discussing volatile topics in public in order to avoid conflating the topics and positions with the debaters and thereby giving offense or turning a public debate into a bi-lateral conversation other people don't want to interrupt. Clearly it had the opposite impact in this instance.
I guess my question, to Megan and everyone else, is "If you find 3D printing of firearms worrying, what about it worries you?"
I equate the use of 3D printers with anything else in a home that is potentially dangerous. The chemicals under the sink or in the garage, the gasoline for the lawn mower, knives from the kitchen, matches, and the family car can all cause a lot of damage. Today there are thousands (millions?) of families with guns in the household.
I assume families will raise their children to know right from wrong, and safe from dangerous, and I don't worry what people (teenagers or adults) will do with potentially dangerous things. Just like power tools or a store-bought gun, if a household purchases a (mythical future 3D printer that can create all the components of an actual gun in a short period of time), I assume adults should be responsible for themselves and, if they have children, the adults will teach the children safe use of the device or limit the children's access to it.
So, everyone, if it worries you, why does it?
Thanks,
Spiky
For the record, I'm pro-gun. My 15 yo sister hunts and eats everything she kills.
With that being said, my views on this topic are not radical. I am not so far right that I believe it should be legal for households to own automatics? (I'm not educated in proper gun terminology, I apologize.)
What I mean is there's no reason to own a guy that can fire 600rounds in seconds.
The future is showing us, that guns that have no other purpose than to kill as many things as possible in a short time, will be printed out in someone's living room.
I have to explain why that is scary to you?! Okay... :?
Parents SHOULD be responsible....yet I never knew one. My mom was a meth addict and I grew up in a school that had a day care for the teen moms. If parents aren't teaching their kids to use birth control, they damn sure aren't teaching their kids gun safety! Different cities are different. I'm not sure where you grew up, but I witnessed violence, crimes, and gangbangers. With that being said...
Mixing chemicals could kill the person trying to make poison to use on other people and seems like a lot of research. Knives are much slower to kill than guns, giving people time to run/fight back. Same with fire. Slower. Much slower.
Right now the system is expensive and not perfect. But I have no doubt in my mind it will be cheap and unflawed in a couple of years. This means that people can easily print out the guns that fire 600+ times in seconds for maybe cheaper than buying it. I'm sure true gangsters could get this type of gun, anyways. But what about the underage kids who just want to shoot up their school? It would be much harder for them to get access to this gun, unless of course, they can just print it at home!
PlayboyMegan said:
Megan,
Thank you for your explanation. It does help me understanding what you, and potentially others, find worrying about 3D printing and, in a broader sense, increased technical capabilities available to individuals.
I can't offer as succinct an explanation of why I do not find such things worrying. I do agree the use of violence by criminals is a risk all of us face, and I also agree there are concerns about how people with mental health issues will act, but those risks are far, far lower than other risks we take for granted. I am vastly more likely to die of heart disease or cancer than I am to be murdered with a gun.
If I digress from the discussion of what does or does not worry me, there are social policy issues about firearm ownership. You stated "there's no reason to own a [gun] that can fire 600rounds in seconds." I disagree. While the "worry" discussion only talks about risk (i.e. the "cons" of a pro/con discussion), I believe there are crucial social benefits in a society that recognizes the unlimited right of individuals to protect themselves, and I believe that protection can only be fully realized by the availability of state-of-the-art arms and technology.
I think people's mental energy is better spent finding solutions to reduce the causes of violence and to identify and treat mental illness than in worrying about the progress of technology. If we can help people be the best possible versions of themselves, I don't think we have to worry about good people hurting others, regardless of the capabilities advancing technology will make available to them.
Thanks,
Spiky
- May 17, 2011
- 5,879
- 25,504
- 293
- Twitter Username
- @JessiDeer
- MFC Username
- JessiDeer
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/43191/JessiDeer/
I want 3D printing technology to become practical and advanced enough for me to pirate sex toys and clothes :hello2:
Thats all I have to say about that.
Thats all I have to say about that.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
I just want to be able to print out the ultimate ham and cheese sandwich.
Well, considering that I still get paper jams every third time I print something, and the cost of toner and ink are still prohibitively expensive enough that it's cheaper and easier to just go get color laser prints from Office Depot than to own your own printer, I would say that quick, convenient, and cost-effective prints of functional guns, sandwiches, blouses, and vibrators may still be just a pipe dream (or nightmare, depending on your position.)
Incidentally, since this seems not to have been pointed out, all of this information revolves around the printed manufacture of gun parts, which are then assembled. That takes quite a bit of savvy and planning. The way that this conversation has gone, it's treating this technology as though you buy a printer and it magically materialized a working gun in your hands, like a Star Trek replicator. There are people who already manufacture and build guns from scratch. If you'd like, I could introduce you to a few. I think it's kind of living in a state of alarmist make-believe that a new form of manufacturing technology, in the form of 3D printers, is going to suddenly avail a ready arsenal to disaffected teenagers and gangsters, or that the progress and availability of 3D printing technology is going to make thrill-killers of us all. This sort of application is going to have a limited appeal, because printing and assembling a gun is never going to be a lazy man's process.
As far as being able to track weapons made like this, sad to say that it's just another entry to a lost cause. Private gun trade in America and the lobbies that support it assures that weapons in this nation will NEVER be adequately tracked. I'd say that if you want to worry about guns, you have plenty to stew over from the millions upon millions of guns that are already out there without documentation, rather than the specter of future guns. It will always be easier to just buy a gun than to build one.
Incidentally, since this seems not to have been pointed out, all of this information revolves around the printed manufacture of gun parts, which are then assembled. That takes quite a bit of savvy and planning. The way that this conversation has gone, it's treating this technology as though you buy a printer and it magically materialized a working gun in your hands, like a Star Trek replicator. There are people who already manufacture and build guns from scratch. If you'd like, I could introduce you to a few. I think it's kind of living in a state of alarmist make-believe that a new form of manufacturing technology, in the form of 3D printers, is going to suddenly avail a ready arsenal to disaffected teenagers and gangsters, or that the progress and availability of 3D printing technology is going to make thrill-killers of us all. This sort of application is going to have a limited appeal, because printing and assembling a gun is never going to be a lazy man's process.
As far as being able to track weapons made like this, sad to say that it's just another entry to a lost cause. Private gun trade in America and the lobbies that support it assures that weapons in this nation will NEVER be adequately tracked. I'd say that if you want to worry about guns, you have plenty to stew over from the millions upon millions of guns that are already out there without documentation, rather than the specter of future guns. It will always be easier to just buy a gun than to build one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
