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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
"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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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!
"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?
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.
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.
"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...
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.
"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!
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...
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.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.