Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control

Started by Driskoll, March 25, 2013, 04:37:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callie Del Noire

Truth be told.. I'm not worried about the 600 round weapon made by them.. I'm willing to bet for a LONG while it will still be cheaper to let the person wanting a gun to buy one.

I'm worried about the clever dick who makes a silenced zip gun with NOT metallic parts. And that will be a simple one person project that will cause trouble. The smart user who doesn't need outside data to make a scary little weapon on his own.

I'm thinking of the little model plastic gun John Malkovich used in one movie. Add in a few gas baffles and you could (conceivably) design a small derringer style pistol that could be fairly quiet at close range.

Shadow879

The whole big deal associated with these is the fact that they can print just the lowers. You don't have to go through any legal paperwork to buy an AR upper, as that is not considered a weapon, the lower receiver is considered the weapon. So if people can make their own stripped lower receiver out of plastic with a 3D printer, that could create a spot of trouble. No one is talking about creating entire guns out of the 3D printer. At least not yet. These guys just did the lower because it is a low-stress part. I for one am impressed.

Surely it is less expensive to buy the materials (if you already have the printer) than to buy a lower, fees and all? Not that it's particularly easy to work a 3d Printer, from what I understand.
Never back down, never look back.

How to make love to the Dark

Tairis

Just .02 from another gun enthusiast:

Cost: Not actually that much cheaper if at all. From posts I've seen on gun forums the one guy used approximately half a spool of the ABS plastic to create JUST the stripped lower. He paid 100$ for the full spool so that's 50$ right there. He didn't create the rest of the actual lower (trigger mechanism, etc). You can buy a full lower online for a couple hundred bucks. Add on 20$ for an FFL handling fee you're still only looking at $220.00.

Durability: the plastics used to create these do not hold up to high temperatures extremely well. If you keep the rate of fire low it should be fine but if you really stress them the parts closest to the barrel are going to start to melt most likely

Legality: it is already completely legal in most of the United States to create a firearm at home. The ATF only requires you to register/serial number/etc if a) you're going to sell it b) you're making an automatic weapon. In the case of b) it requires explicit permission from the ATF to do so and they pretty much never, ever give that permission.
"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
- Robert Heinlein

Driskoll

Given how much attention the first documentary got, Vice decided to have an interview with Cody Wilson.

Cody Wilson on 3D-Printed Guns: VICE Podcast 001

I also have a question about one of the things stated repeatedly in this thread. Is it really that easy to make a gun at home? I know it's possible, and there are tools/equipment that everyone can buy and it obviously hasn't been a big issue. But I always assumed making guns at home required a fair amount of knowledge even with the right tools, while this seems to have the potential to require virtually no knowledge once the technology is out of its infancy.

I think Pumpkin Seeds did a great job of explaining some of my fears, although I still think we're a long way away from seeing any of the potential problems with wiki guns.

If the genie is out of the bottle though, will adding taggants to the mix and/or registering 3D printers to people be enough?       

Hemingway

Interesting. I ended up watching the entire thing, even though I initially had no intention of doing so.

It seems to me like this could change a lot of things. To argue about costs, durability and practicality at this point is pretty meaningless, since the technology is obviously still very much in its infancy.

But I'm most interested in this from a geographic point of view. I don't know if the guy in the video, who seems to take some issue with globalized capitalism, let's say, realises that this is exactly the sort of thing that drives flexible mass production. Which in turn is part of what drives economic globalization in the world today. Guns are one thing, and the ability to produce them anywhere as long as you have a 3D printer and the blueprints, that's one thing. But this has implications far beyond that.

Quote from: Retribution on March 26, 2013, 10:07:08 AMThese are skilled folks and it takes more than a little skill to do such a thing. I feel if say printer technology gets to the point that we are printing firearms then we are still dealing with skilled people. Your average Joe is not going to print his own gun. Anyone who says otherwise is just spewing gun control propaganda or being self aggrandizing.

You must not have seen the part where they talked about spreading the blueprints over the internet.

Which I think is one of the main points here.

Retribution

Blueprints are one thing the ability to do something with those is another. For example, I am well suffice to say a professional environmentalist. Sample results that are perfectly clear to me mean nada to most people. As I said before I am staying out of the whole commentary on this from this point on. But I feel your fellow in the video has an agenda and is spinning things accordingly. Please take with a grain of salt I am not inclined to purchase a used car from him.

Driskoll

Quote from: Retribution on April 11, 2013, 12:35:15 PM
Blueprints are one thing the ability to do something with those is another.

That's very true, and I'm not convinced that entirely unskilled individuals would be able to put a gun together correctly even if they did manage to print out all the parts.

I hesitate to mention a thought that occurred to me as it is highly theoretical, but I think I'll share it anyway for the sake of discussion. Since a 3D printer prints layer by layer, it could be possible to eventually design a printer that could make a fully functioning and ready to fire gun that would not require assembly. If it ever got to that point, it really would be as easy as Click. Print. Gun.   

Quote from: Retribution on April 11, 2013, 12:35:15 PM
As I said before I am staying out of the whole commentary on this from this point on.

Part of the reason I started this thread was to get opinions from people with all different thoughts, feelings and knowledge about guns. So long as the discussion remains civil and relevant to printed weapons, I would love to have your input.

I plan to keep this thread updated with more interesting developments with Cody Wilson and wiki weapons in general, and I do not want anyone to feel as though they cannot weigh in. 

Healergirl

Driskoll,

Select the template for the product, press the print/build, button, then use the item fresh from the output bin is the design objective for these printers/fabricators, I think.

Driskoll

#33
Yes, but the technology is even further away from that. Even if the all the components could eventually be made with a printer, I still think it would take another large hurdle to get to the point of printing a fully assembled weapon with little to no defect.

To my mind, assembling a weapon made from mostly or completely printed parts might be on the horizon, while printing a complete gun in one go is still very much on the drawing board.   

Edit for grammar.

Healergirl

Driskoll,

It might be more useful to think of these printers as fabricators, perhaps.

20 years, maybe?  Less? Perhaps ten?  More?K  Perhaps 30?

This is just so, so useful for all sorts of applications, not just guns.  A lot of very bright people are or will be working very hard on getting the bugs out.

Dashenka

Only in the US.. wonder how much more innocent CHILDREN must die because of accidental gunshot accidents before they realize it's barbarian and stupid.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Oniya

Changing the legality of something rarely impacts those who would choose to circumvent legal channels to begin with.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Ephiral

Quote from: Oniya on April 13, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Changing the legality of something rarely impacts those who would choose to circumvent legal channels to begin with.
I see this a lot in the context of gun control, usually from Americans. And it always makes me look at the illegal weapons market, and how many of them fell off the back of a legal weapons truck, or out of a legitimate owner's safe, and go "Really?"

Healergirl

Ephiral,

Part of the attitude is, I think, a blowback from the ineffectiveness of our War On Drugs, despite 40 years of intense effort, the drug trade exists
and prospers. Mmany Americans suspect there will be a similar lack of success with any effort to ban guns- and that perhaps any move to ban guns will trigger a very violent reaction from gun owners.

Oniya

Further back than that, Healergirl.  America tried to make alcohol illegal.  Result?  Al Capone and his ilk made millions.  If people are willing to go to illegal means to get what they want, declaring something illegal isn't going to stop them.

What is needed is education on gun safety (I mentioned periodic license renewals and discounts on insurance for owners who are properly trained) so that the inexperienced gun owners who leave dangerous weapons where a child can access it stop doing that.

I mean, when I had the little Oni, we went through the house and child-proofed it.  Hazardous chemicals and tools were put in places where prying fingers couldn't get to them, until she was old enough to be taught how to properly handle (or not handle) them.  What is so incomprehensible about doing the same thing with regards to firearms?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Healergirl

Oniya,

You won't get an argument from me.  License renewals, meaningful safety/skill exams, insurance changes would make much of the accidental death problem disappear - but the problem is, the Gun Lobby will likely oppose such measures as an infringement of gun ownership rights - which leads to the blowback effects that raise public pressure to go with more extreme gun restrictions or outright bans.

Too many people with guns see them as just another thing around the house, I very much fear.  How many people don't even do basic anti-household chemical childproofing?  Far too many.

Ephiral

Quote from: Oniya on April 13, 2013, 12:24:35 PM
Further back than that, Healergirl.  America tried to make alcohol illegal.  Result?  Al Capone and his ilk made millions.  If people are willing to go to illegal means to get what they want, declaring something illegal isn't going to stop them.

What is needed is education on gun safety (I mentioned periodic license renewals and discounts on insurance for owners who are properly trained) so that the inexperienced gun owners who leave dangerous weapons where a child can access it stop doing that.

I mean, when I had the little Oni, we went through the house and child-proofed it.  Hazardous chemicals and tools were put in places where prying fingers couldn't get to them, until she was old enough to be taught how to properly handle (or not handle) them.  What is so incomprehensible about doing the same thing with regards to firearms?
Up here, at least, the overwhelming majority of illegal weapons come from one of two places: Brought through unguarded points at the border, where they can generally be traced back to legitimate sales or shipments in the US, or out of the safe of a legitimate owner at gunpoint. I understand that this is pretty generally the case in the US as well, though I'm open to being shown otherwise. Given that (for now at least) making a gun isn't something you can do in your backyard or bathtub, I don't see how reducing the number of people with legitimate access can do anything but reduce the number of illegitimate weapons.

Healergirl

Ephiral,

Oh I do think you are right.

But we are in something of a cultural trap in the US.  Guns are seen as a birthright by many many people, and due to rulings not that long ago, they can point to modern Supreme Court interpretations of the 2nd amendment that yes, in constitutinal terms, they kind of  are.

People tend to stop thinking when guns are discussed, on both sides.  In his book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt pointed out that inground pools were far more likely to accidentally kill children than guns were, comparing group to group.  Comparing the danger of an individual in-ground pool to the individual gun, in-ground pools were far far more dangerous.  In-ground pools are deadly  dangerous, and there is in fact an active but low key movement to ban them which has met with some success.  But despite the greater danger, pools well, are just not as sexy as guns are, because they don't draw on the national ethos of the Minuteman the way guns do.

And the Minuteman ethos is what  the more extreme no-limits-at-all types  gun owners have in mind, live by,  point to.  Using their guns as defense against the tyranny of the government is not just hot air, they mean it.

How many of theses extremists are they?  I suspect enough to make our current death rate by guns look like an oasis of stability if they panic and revolt.


SinXAzgard21

Quote from: Dashenka on April 13, 2013, 10:37:17 AM
Only in the US.. wonder how much more innocent CHILDREN must die because of accidental gunshot accidents before they realize it's barbarian and stupid.

Just keep in mind it isn't the guns fault.
If you know me personally, you know how to contact me.

Ephiral

Quote from: SinXAzgard21 on April 13, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
Just keep in mind it isn't the guns fault.
And it's not the drug's fault when people OD, or the explosive's fault when someone gets blown up. Those get regulated strictly or banned. What's the difference?

SinXAzgard21

Quote from: Ephiral on April 13, 2013, 01:23:59 PM
And it's not the drug's fault when people OD, or the explosive's fault when someone gets blown up. Those get regulated strictly or banned. What's the difference?

It is the person.  That is the difference.
If you know me personally, you know how to contact me.

Ephiral

Quote from: SinXAzgard21 on April 13, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
It is the person.  That is the difference.
...what? How do the examples I cited not require a person to pull the trigger?

The Golden Touch

I think its more that people with a serious lack of common sense are handling weapons and shooting innocent people, not just children. I'm in the military, and I know how to handle a weapon. It is really a case to case basis on who does and does not need a gun in their hand.

"Yesterday was the easy day."
Ideas (Open) /What Floats My Boat\ Absences

Ephiral

Quote from: The Golden Touch on April 13, 2013, 01:30:12 PM
I think its more that people with a serious lack of common sense are handling weapons and shooting innocent people, not just children. I'm in the military, and I know how to handle a weapon. It is really a case to case basis on who does and does not need a gun in their hand.
I'd generally trust most (by no means all) of the military people I've met to handle a gun. Mind you, most of them would say that it's a really dumb idea for them to carry a loaded weapon in the middle of a civilian population that isn't part of a warzone.

The Golden Touch

Good thing I'm not most of them. If I were stationed in specific places, I would want to be armed. Some people really hate military and look for them. I think civilians should have the right to carry a gun legally. Some people even use them as a living to feed their families. There are proper places to have a weapon, and I don't think gun control is going to do anything for it any more than laws against drugs has done for that.

"Yesterday was the easy day."
Ideas (Open) /What Floats My Boat\ Absences