Engineering Lifestyle
Comment
MVD
Quite simply, without Freedom of Speech, there would be no 2nd Amendment.
IDontUseTheForumSoWhyAmIForcedToMakeANickname
How long before there's government legislation that requires you obtain a ...
Guns- A license to print
Leslie Langan
8/1/2012 7:14 PM EDT
3D printers are rapidly evolving into creation tools for anything from jewelry to blood cells.
Ever more affordable, 3D printers can now be found and purchased online for as little as $1000, meaning it won’t be long before many households have them as common appliances.
Meanwhile, designs for the printers are easily found online and can be manipulated to create anything a person could dream of, from spare parts to new shoes, with no specific knowledge of mechanics or engineering necessary. So far, so good, then, but can 3D printing go too far?
Take the case of the home-printed semi-automatic weapon, created by engineer Michael Guslick this week, just after the tragic Colorado shooting incident in Aurora which claimed 12 lives.
Guslick first announced his achievement on an Internet forum, and said in a later interview with the New York Daily News that the process of printing it “wasn’t that difficult.”
For anyone with any doubts, rest assured, it works. The firearm used a printed reinforced AR-15 lower receiver and successfully fired over 200 rounds.
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the world's first 3D printed firearm to actually be tested,” he wrote.
“It was extremely large and ungainly, but it worked,” he said, adding that the “barrier to entry is certainly being lowered.” Templates like the one Guslick used can be easily accessed online, and anyone with even just basic technological knowledge could probably do what Guslick did, which begs the question; never mind gun control, do we actually need 3-D printer control?
The destructive possibilities of 3D printers in the wrong hands are almost entirely overlooked by mainstream media, and that doesn’t just apply to 3D firearms. The reality is that, in the wrong hands, 3D devices are as capable of destroying things as they are at creating them.
Take another example of Glasgow University chemist Lee Cronin, who recently found a way “to turn a 3D printer into a universal chemistry set.” When built, Cronin’s “chemputer” will be able to produce illicit drugs.
When heroin and semi-automatic weapons can be produced at home with a tap of the print button, how can we ensure the safety of our communities? Will those with 3D printers be required to register like gun users? Should there be legislation barring or tracking the distribution of blueprints for potentially dangerous items?
Machines are as productive or destructive as the individual that interfaces with it. The majority of 3D printer owners will produce things that are completely innocuous and non-threatening, but like any other potentially lethal device, we must have a way of tracking what is being produced and by whom....don’t you think?
Ever more affordable, 3D printers can now be found and purchased online for as little as $1000, meaning it won’t be long before many households have them as common appliances.
Meanwhile, designs for the printers are easily found online and can be manipulated to create anything a person could dream of, from spare parts to new shoes, with no specific knowledge of mechanics or engineering necessary. So far, so good, then, but can 3D printing go too far?
Take the case of the home-printed semi-automatic weapon, created by engineer Michael Guslick this week, just after the tragic Colorado shooting incident in Aurora which claimed 12 lives.
Guslick first announced his achievement on an Internet forum, and said in a later interview with the New York Daily News that the process of printing it “wasn’t that difficult.”
For anyone with any doubts, rest assured, it works. The firearm used a printed reinforced AR-15 lower receiver and successfully fired over 200 rounds.
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the world's first 3D printed firearm to actually be tested,” he wrote.
“It was extremely large and ungainly, but it worked,” he said, adding that the “barrier to entry is certainly being lowered.” Templates like the one Guslick used can be easily accessed online, and anyone with even just basic technological knowledge could probably do what Guslick did, which begs the question; never mind gun control, do we actually need 3-D printer control?
The destructive possibilities of 3D printers in the wrong hands are almost entirely overlooked by mainstream media, and that doesn’t just apply to 3D firearms. The reality is that, in the wrong hands, 3D devices are as capable of destroying things as they are at creating them.
Take another example of Glasgow University chemist Lee Cronin, who recently found a way “to turn a 3D printer into a universal chemistry set.” When built, Cronin’s “chemputer” will be able to produce illicit drugs.
When heroin and semi-automatic weapons can be produced at home with a tap of the print button, how can we ensure the safety of our communities? Will those with 3D printers be required to register like gun users? Should there be legislation barring or tracking the distribution of blueprints for potentially dangerous items?
Machines are as productive or destructive as the individual that interfaces with it. The majority of 3D printer owners will produce things that are completely innocuous and non-threatening, but like any other potentially lethal device, we must have a way of tracking what is being produced and by whom....don’t you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
SylvieBarak
8/1/2012 8:08 PM EDT
The NRA is going to have a field day with this...
Sign in to Reply
jnissen
8/2/2012 1:06 AM EDT
A lower receiver is not a full gun. The upper receiver with barrel and bolt are the critical elements that need to contain the high pressures involved with the firearm. To say he printed a complete working gun is not even close to reality.
Sign in to Reply
xprmntl
8/2/2012 2:15 PM EDT
Blatant fear mongering. It will remain much easier to just buy one, legally, or illegally, for the foreseeable future.
Sign in to Reply
BruceP
8/2/2012 5:53 PM EDT
I think we need to start thinking about methods and laws to control crazy people instead of trying to control everything that could potentially be dangerous, including printers, guns, cars, knives, propane bottles, etc...
Sign in to Reply
C VanDorne
8/3/2012 2:14 PM EDT
Didn't we used to lock them up?
Sign in to Reply
C VanDorne
8/3/2012 2:24 PM EDT
...more specifically: institutionalize them?
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/3/2012 8:27 PM EDT
Yeah, often after the damage has been done though...
Sign in to Reply
przemek
8/2/2012 7:23 PM EDT
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the lower receiver is the 'registered' part of the weapon, as far as ATF is concerned, i.e. where the serial number resides.
Sign in to Reply
drewd
8/3/2012 9:05 AM EDT
He did not "print" a gun. He printed the lower receiver. It's nothing more than a hunk of polymer without the upper receiver, which is the part that he had to purchase from a licensed firearms dealer.
Let's not feed the FUD.
Sign in to Reply
jbreher
8/6/2012 3:13 PM EDT
The lower receiver is the part that the ATF considers a gun. The other parts are not tracked in any manner by the ATF, and do _not_ require purchase from an FFL. If 7-11 wanted to stock these other parts, they'd be legally able to.
Sign in to Reply
Les_Slater
8/3/2012 10:06 AM EDT
Next there will be a clamor for a registered inventory of everything we possess or maybe anything we might come in contact with. All with the government's right to inspect and verify of course.
Sign in to Reply
C VanDorne
8/3/2012 2:26 PM EDT
Oh, that'll come with Obamacare: "As the Secretary shall determine...". Government doesn't need the benefit of tragedy to exact tyrany. They've already got the mechanism in the form of our new 2400+ page "constitution". So if anything needs to be outlawed...
Sign in to Reply
xprmntl
8/3/2012 3:28 PM EDT
Wow, more fear mongering. Live how you like, but no one _needs_ a 100 round clip, and the country would benefit from a medical safety net.
Sign in to Reply
divide_by_zero
8/3/2012 6:53 PM EDT
Why is it that the second amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that hasn't been badly weakened? People should be far more scared of things like loss of habeas corpus, corporate control of media, extrajudicial executions, unrestrained PAC donations and government snooping than a nonexistent threat to take their hunting rifles away.
Sign in to Reply
Stargzer
8/6/2012 10:42 AM EDT
"Why is it that the second amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that hasn't been badly weakened? "
Because the Second Amendment is the last resort for defense of the Constitution and the other Amendments, including the First Amendment.
Sign in to Reply
MVD
12/3/2012 5:48 AM EST
Quite simply, without Freedom of Speech, there would be no 2nd Amendment.
Sign in to Reply
jbreher
8/6/2012 3:17 PM EDT
The 2A _has_ been badly weakened. Ever since the NFA of 1934, the right to keep and bear arms has been increasingly infringed upon in an almost monotonic manner.
Machine gun? Hand grenade? Howitzer? Missile launcher? Flamethrower? Can you make a cogent argument that claims these are not arms?
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/3/2012 8:33 PM EDT
Interesting debate. On balance, I would like the state to have less control over citizens' lives. Does that mean people should be free to buy rifle guns over the counter? Not in my book.
Sign in to Reply
FlyByPC
8/3/2012 8:34 PM EDT
@divide_by_zero It's probably because the Guvmin't takin' away their guns is the only part of the Bill of Rights that a lot of people understand and/or care about.
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
8/3/2012 11:36 PM EDT
It has been easy to build a quite lethal air-gun for at least 45 years, which is how long ago I built one. Not an automatic, of course, but made with parts from a hardware store that are still available today, for about the same price. The really specialized tools are a drill and a tap. With a 3D printer it should be possible to make a fully automatic one, about 80 caliber and firing 30 rounds a minute. Not much by military standards, and the dangerous range is only about a hundred feet.
But if you are concerned about dangerous things, just look up what they teach Marines in combat training. One hint: it is not about tea-time manners. And then after 3 or 4 years they send these folks back into society, and some fit in just fine, but some are damaged goods who don't fit so very fine. So how are they going to remove that training, which, by the way, is a lot more deadly than many legal firearms. And it gets worse, if you look at the special forces, and some of those other teams that we seldom hear about.
But the big thing that we need to be concerned about now is more subtle and much more dangerous. We are seeing a whole generation being trained to never concentrate and to never focus their attention on anything. People like that are ripe to be enslaved because they won't be able to focus long enough to realize that something has gone wrong. Think about it: As engineers, we know that to identify a problem and solve that problem requires concentration and focus. Those are the most fundamental things, even before our knowledge and insight. If we can't concentrate, we can't find a solution. Right?
Sign in to Reply
chrisnfolsom
8/5/2012 8:11 AM EDT
Actually if you look at the Beeman history page http://www.beeman.com/history.htm you can see that air guns have been around since the 1500's - some of which were .50" caliber.
I find it a bit amusing that people cling to gun rights against a power with nuclear bombs and such - claiming the 2nd Amendment. I understand the paranoia perhaps, but it is a bit ridiculous, and the disparity between Army's and the "common" man are just going to get worse - as with UAV's...
I also don't quite understand how this is a gun as it is not complete - can you say a grenade was printed because a printed casing was stuffed with explosives?
I am concerned about this, but unfortunately as mentioned before I don't think we can limit the devices, but perhaps the individuals - although that involves some pretty scary situations although with cell phones, GPS and biometric integrations who knows what will happen...
Sign in to Reply
jbreher
8/6/2012 3:20 PM EDT
The US Armed forces cannot use nuclear bombs upon the citizens of the USA without employing them upon the USA. Accordingly, your argument is nonsensical.
I get that there is a disparity. How'd that work out in Viet Nam? Did they capitulate?
And this disparity is actually a result of the ever increasing infringement upon the 2A.
Sign in to Reply
abraxalito
8/4/2012 2:52 AM EDT
'The man with the plasic gun' - hmm, doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Sign in to Reply
Steve_B
8/4/2012 11:54 AM EDT
When I was a kid 40+ years ago, we made things that would get us put in jail today. Zinc-sulfer-fueled rockets that if pointed at a house instead of into the air would go through a wall, home-made fireworks and explosives (a friend made a gram or so of nitroglycerine, and even we thought he was crazy), someone losing fingers... Now fast-forward another 40 years.
You *can't* control the technologies that we are unleashing. Never mind printing an illegal drug, consider what happens when anyone can print a virus. Pandora's box is already open, and it's not going to get closed. Now, how do we deal with it? Totalitarian states that control everything? Lessez-faire states that don't, and hope for the best? A return to a (nonexistent) more-genteel past? And how do you do it when technology moves at light speed, and politics moves at continental drift speed? For now, we just have to try to stay ahead of the curve creating the antibodies for the ills that technology is creating... but if anyone has a better answer, please let us all know!
Sign in to Reply
Les_Slater
8/4/2012 12:12 PM EDT
Steve raises some very important questions as well as some observations.
We need a social revolution.
Sign in to Reply
Steve_B
8/4/2012 1:42 PM EDT
"We need a social revolution" is a pretty general statement... can you be more specific? We need to turn insurance companies into nonprofits, charge a fee to make a stock transaction, provide free preventive health care for everyone, outlaw the teaching of "creation 'science'", draft qualified people into public offices (and disqualify them if they actually want the job), now THOSE are revolutionary ideas I could get behind... but do you have any in mind for technology?
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/4/2012 8:22 PM EDT
"creation 'science'"
That's an oxymoron :-)
I never understood why do people with faith try to legitimise their faith through science when all scientific evidence is stacked against them? Call it blind faith and leave science out of it, I say.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
8/4/2012 11:16 PM EDT
Steve, I might suggest that we return to the basics: morality, right and wrong, having consequences for our actions, all the things that my dad's generation grew up with (and tried to pass on to me). With the assault on the church and faith, the pushing of moral relativism we can't expect that laws or common sense will prevail. The answer isn't more laws or bigger government, it is with teaching and training our kids (and maybe ourselves) responsibility and a sense of right and wrong. Then and only then we might have a chance. There will always be crazy or just plain bad people but that should be the exception instead of the rule.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/5/2012 7:03 AM EDT
"With the assault on the church and faith"
I actually see the reverse happening which worries me greatly. To use one's religious faith to teach kids that the Earth is 5000 years old for example is simply an assault on science.
I also do not think religious dogma is needed to teach kids right and wrong. Humans have a predilection towards morality and this can be easily explained through the theory of evolution (it is in our long term interest as a species to behave in a moral way).
In any case, I do not mind people having and indeed preaching their faith, just do not call it science...
Sign in to Reply
chrisnfolsom
8/5/2012 8:26 AM EDT
This of course is a tough situation as faith is not based on the scientific method - it IS in all it's entirety, or it is not and all is lost.... That's tough in today's information society as you are constantly tested and it's hard to "have your own facts" as you are exposed to false facts in everyday life - recently that has resulted in the conservatives attacking science itself... THIS situation is not to be trifled with as it has caused the erosion of so many years of science knowledge and resulted in the polarized politics we "enjoy" today...
I don't really have much of a solution but to break the assault on reason and fight back - which will go directly against many Churches. Perhaps that is what you are left with - let's take off the gloves as the opposition want's us back in the dark ages - and believes we are the greatest nation due to God and fantasies, not science, fact and creating a competitive edge over our competitors by reinvesting in our schools and making education affordable and effective at helping us compete in a world economy.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/5/2012 1:18 PM EDT
"let's take off the gloves as the opposition want's us back in the dark ages "
I fear we must.
PS. It is ironic that at the same time that science is beginning to uncover the deepest secrets of life and the universe, some of our follow human beings want to take us back to the dark ages!
Sign in to Reply
res213
8/6/2012 7:03 AM EDT
This seems to be getting political.
There are groups of loonies on both sides of the fence, but most major Christian religions (including Catholicism) view faith and science as not being in conflict. It was a Catholic priest after all who helped lead to our understanding of the 'Big Bang'. And at the time, it was predominately non-religious (including Einstein) who rejected his work as being possibly religiously motivated and standing against the existing view of a 'static' universe.
In any case, in my local area, the conservatives seem more interested in improving education and offering more freedom of choice for parents (since that is the one subject you brought up) while those on the left are more inclined to fight for the support of the teachers union, even if it is to the determent of the student and their families.
But sorry to interrupt your intellectual crusade against the loony right...
Sign in to Reply
Old Timer
8/6/2012 2:00 AM EDT
Homemade guns have been around for as long as there have been firearms. Years ago I saw pictures of zip guns made by gangs in the 50s. Could be made just with hand tools, but a metal lathe would have made the project go a lot faster.
As long as people have malicious intent, they will be able to find a way to kill. Started with rocks, sticks (clubs) and progressed to knives, spears, and arrows etc. Until the intent can be eliminated, the evil will be able to kill. Eliminating guns will just make it impossible for the weak and small to defend themselves.
Sign in to Reply
MindTech
8/7/2012 11:16 AM EDT
"Printcrime" by Cory Doctorow
http://craphound.com/?p=573
Sign in to Reply
IDontUseTheForumSoWhyAmIForcedToMakeANickname
8/10/2012 4:02 PM EDT
How long before there's government legislation that requires you obtain a licence to own a 3D printer?
That sounds like the proper way to address the problem without actually addressing the problem.
Sign in to Reply