7 votes

The FGC9 is a 3D Printed firearm that is built from unregulated components and costs 100$ to make

@fuggguncontrol:
The FGC9 is a (mostly) 3D Printed firearm that is built from unregulated components - using the EU definition of what a "regulated component" is. This makes it just short of an entirely scratch built firearm. It costs 100 dollars to build. #GunControlNow #3Dprinting #DIY https://t.co/gPxoFHzHvd

13 comments

  1. [13]
    asoftbird
    Link
    Hobbies? Seems the goal of this is to make guns available to those who cannot legally get them otherwise. Unless bank robbery counts as a fun sunday afternoon pastime.

    Hobbies? Seems the goal of this is to make guns available to those who cannot legally get them otherwise. Unless bank robbery counts as a fun sunday afternoon pastime.

    4 votes
    1. [11]
      AugustusFerdinand
      Link Parent
      Or it's an example that gun control efforts in a modern era are ineffective and only going to be more so as time goes on, and the legislation that is written to prevent gun violence should be done...

      Or it's an example that gun control efforts in a modern era are ineffective and only going to be more so as time goes on, and the legislation that is written to prevent gun violence should be done in a manner that treats the problem instead of just being good for soundbites and to please the lowest common denominator in your particular party.

      18 votes
      1. [6]
        mat
        Link Parent
        I dunno, they seem to be working pretty well where I live. I can count the mass shootings during my life on the fingers of one hand and I'm fairly old. I could print that gun right now but how or...

        gun control efforts in a modern era are ineffective

        I dunno, they seem to be working pretty well where I live. I can count the mass shootings during my life on the fingers of one hand and I'm fairly old. I could print that gun right now but how or where I'd get something to fire from it I have no idea. The same way I can't just go and buy a gun, I can't just go and buy ammo.

        I'm perfectly happy with this situation. The problem of people doing violence to each other (and themselves) with guns seems to be quite effectively treated by simply not making guns and ammo easily available to people.

        20 votes
        1. [5]
          AugustusFerdinand
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          And I'm guessing it's a place with socialized medicine, better education system, lower population, less diverse population, overall better quality of life, and a litany of factors other than just...

          And I'm guessing it's a place with socialized medicine, better education system, lower population, less diverse population, overall better quality of life, and a litany of factors other than just simple unavailability.

          The only "gun control" that can work isn't gun control, it's a complete ban and I also doubt your country implemented such recently.

          3 votes
          1. [4]
            mat
            Link Parent
            Near-total ban, as it goes. Shotguns are available if you can prove you have a need for one and you pass all the tests to prove you're safe to have one (which includes the police coming to your...
            • Exemplary

            Near-total ban, as it goes. Shotguns are available if you can prove you have a need for one and you pass all the tests to prove you're safe to have one (which includes the police coming to your house and looking around it). Bolt-action rifles the same, but almost nobody qualifies to own those. Handguns are totally banned, as are auto and semi-automatic rifles, pretty sure pump action shotguns are limited to 3 (maybe 4) cartridge capacity. Every time someone has gone on a rampage, that sort of gun gets banned, or at least heavily restricted. I remember our one school shooting. Dude had a handgun, a few months later, handguns were banned and nobody has shot up a school (or anywhere else) with one since.

            Anecdotally I'd say it's safe to say that most people in my country have never seen a firearm and far fewer have ever held or fired one. I'm unusual among my peer group in having fired a shotgun. The majority of my friends and family have not.

            You're right that there are other factors, but banning guns from general ownership is a massive part of limiting gun violence. If you knew the state of adult social care (the 'mental health' the gun people always talk about) here there's no way that's up to the job. If we had guns on sale in supermarkets like you do, we'd have mass shootings every other week, I guarantee it. Sure, you can say that gun control doesn't work, but the evidence suggests that it does. Look at the reaction to the Port Arthur, Hungerford, Dunblane massacres - bans. Have similar events happened since? No. Correlation is not causation, you say, but let's not be silly here. Banning guns works well enough. We need healthcare and education and so on as well, because civilised societies have those things - but nobody ever took a free prescription or a schoolbook into a mall and killed a load of people with them.

            btw, can you just confirm what you were getting at when you said "less diverse" as a reduction factor in gun violence? Because that could be read as being somewhat racist and I'm sure that's not what you meant.

            14 votes
            1. [3]
              AugustusFerdinand
              Link Parent
              UK then, I assume. A country with a very long history and one where firearms were never really ingrained as part of it and therefore one where bans would work. As a liberal we all like to toss...

              UK then, I assume. A country with a very long history and one where firearms were never really ingrained as part of it and therefore one where bans would work. As a liberal we all like to toss around the thought experiments of things in other countries working in the US, but the logistics and culture are simply not the same for many to work, despite my desire for them to. Last I checked there are about five times the number of firearms in the US than there are people in the UK. To add to it the difficulty of changing something that is not just ingrained in culture, but in the very documents the country was born on. Simply put, I have zero belief that guns can be banned in the US at all and believe it would have to cease to be the United States for it to occur.

              Do I think guns should be more difficult to acquire. Absolutely. And I've outlined ways and whys in another comment here, but as that thread also suggested once something is invented, it cannot be un-invented. You may not know how to acquire or construct ammunition, but there are many in your country that I assure you do. How do you feel knowing that anyone there can pop down to a electronics shop and buy a 3D printer to create a semi-automatic (or honestly, a fully automatic) firearm? How about if it didn't even take a 3D printer and just needed a trip to the hardware store and has already been done in your country?

              Banning something works prior to it being easy to create without specialized knowledge or tooling and prior to saturation, not afterward. Which is why I stated it's ineffective in the modern era. If the US were to ban guns, they'd have needed to repeal the 2nd amendment about 100 years ago. If there are no guns, there are no gun deaths, can't argue that. However it's also not a coceivable or feasible reality in the slightest.

              Socioeconomic. May I suggest you not attempt to present a thinly veiled accusation of racism based purely on your assumption of my opinions/political leanings due to the subject matter at hand and my obviously greater amount of experience regarding it; because that could be read as being somewhat malicious and I'm sure that's not what you meant.

              2 votes
              1. [2]
                mat
                Link Parent
                Ah, yes, America's precious bit of paper. Paper can never be changed. Never mind that it was an amendment to start with. And because of that, America can't possibly fix it's gun problem. You guys...

                Ah, yes, America's precious bit of paper. Paper can never be changed. Never mind that it was an amendment to start with. And because of that, America can't possibly fix it's gun problem. You guys went to the freaking moon, but you can't change a single bit of paper? It's so sad to see. Look at Australia if you want someone with, historically, more of a gun culture. They sorted it out pretty well. I know it's not your fault that America doesn't care, but really the only reason it hasn't been solved is that America doesn't, in aggregate, care about tens of thousands of deaths of it's own citizens every year.

                I know how to make ammo. I'm a metalsmith. I - like anyone with basic fabrication skills - could make an entire gun if I wanted, I don't need a 3D printer. But it's not that easy to do when you have to make most of it from scratch, you need various tools and skills most people don't have. You can't just pop down to the corner shop and buy a tub of powder or a box of casings - you need certification and licenses and so on. Even just setting up a 3D printer to get a good enough quality print isn't that straightforward, let along building your own ammo as well. If you want it to be completely untracable you're going to need a LOT of gear.

                Sure, people eventually can do anything via information available on the internet but this isn't about deterring the determined and capable, because those people are always going to do what they want. Luckily the intersection between capable, determined and dangerous lunatics is very small. If it wasn't we'd have serious problems already. That's why I'm not worried by this. Anyone dumb enough to do it is dumb enough to fuck up at any number of easily fucked up steps along the route to a functioning weapon.

                fwiw, if I thought you were being racist I'd just say that. I've long since given up on pussyfooting around on that particular topic. I really wasn't sure what you meant. If you were referring to socioeconomic diversity you should have said so - although I'm not sure the US is particularly more diverse that way than the UK, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that front if you have some numbers.

                4 votes
                1. NaraVara
                  Link Parent
                  Even more importantly, one of the founders' main concerns with the Bill of Rights was that they worried it would create the false impression that these are the only rights guaranteed by the...

                  Never mind that it was an amendment to start with.

                  Even more importantly, one of the founders' main concerns with the Bill of Rights was that they worried it would create the false impression that these are the only rights guaranteed by the Constitution and would elevate them above other pressing rights and needs that people might have. From their perspective, the structure of Constitutional government itself was the ultimate guarantor of peoples' individual rights and liberties.

                  "There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights, in Great-Britain, form its constitution, and conversely the constitution of each state is its bill of rights. And the proposed constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the union."

                  The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a strict accounting of all peoples' natural rights, and our conception of what our natural rights are is supposed to evolve according to the needs of the time. This was certainly the intention behind Madison and Hamilton's design for the government, and the "originalist" interpretations are purely ahistorical and tend to get thrown out by their own proponents as soon as its convenient to the Republican party's prospects besides.

                  What's more, conventional interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as granting a boundaryless right to own whatever kinds of guns you want are also absolutely ahistorical. Most states restricted gun ownership to specific individuals (specifically free Blacks were forbidden) from the day the Constitution was signed. When the Bill of Rights was written the rights guaranteed were considered to be restrictions on the Federal governments' scope of action, not state governments. The intent was to prevent the Federal government from encroaching on the States' rights, but the idea that the Framers believed there were no public safety arguments to curtail individual gun ownership is completely ahistorical. It was assumed States would do the necessary regulating.

                  Indeed, this was the finding in US v. Cruickshank, and conservatives were just fine with it when it meant keeping the government from enforcing the free speech rights of Black people. It wasn't until the late 30s when some provisions in the Bill of Rights were extended down. But this didn't happen for the 2nd Amendment until 2010. And that was purely the result of Republicans having stacked the courts with conservative justices for 30 years prior specifically to get this result, so it's hardly a good faith or legitimate interpretation of things.

                  3 votes
      2. NaraVara
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        You can make pipe-bombs from household parts, but we still have laws about building explosives in your garage and doing so can constitute prima facie evidence that you’re up to no good. The very...

        You can make pipe-bombs from household parts, but we still have laws about building explosives in your garage and doing so can constitute prima facie evidence that you’re up to no good. The very fact that doing so is legally actionable gives law enforcement the ability to stop things before they get out of hand.

        One of the main problems with preventing mass shootings and even domestic partner violence with guns is exactly that it is considered illegitimate for the police to take action against you for owning a gun whilst being provably unhinged or having multiple domestic violence charges against you.

        6 votes
      3. [4]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [3]
          AugustusFerdinand
          Link Parent
          You should be uncomfortable with the ban on research, just as I am. I am, despite how oxymoronic it sounds, a gun owning liberal Texan. I am in favor of stricter gun control such as waiting...

          You should be uncomfortable with the ban on research, just as I am. I am, despite how oxymoronic it sounds, a gun owning liberal Texan. I am in favor of stricter gun control such as waiting periods, as there is little reason I need to be able to walk into a store and in half an hour walk out with a firearm. I am in favor of universal background checks as at this moment if I sell one of my firearms to another individual I pretty much just have to go with my gut that I think they're legally able to own it. I am in favor of red flag laws as I have witnessed threats be made against someone by someone with a gun, those threats get reported, the individual get even more angry that it was reported, and then killed the person they threatened in addition to having worked in mental health and seen the typical variety of ever increasing levels spousal abuse ending in homicide.

          A lot of gun owners will point to Texas and complain about how we're seen as some bastion of conservative freedoms, but actually require classes and accuracy tests prior to being able to carry a concealed firearm. Which I'm in favor of and in favor of requiring classes to purchase at all as I don't think a device designed to kill should be handed over to someone that could possibly have zero knowledge about its operation, safety, or use. Not too long ago a non-gun owning friend of mine asked me to talk to his brother about the rifle he had just purchased and was having an issue with. Assuming it was something small, misunderstood, or in need of gunsmithing I did so only to find out that he had purchased and AR-15 with zero knowledge of how to use it, disassemble it, etc. He hadn't even bothered to watch a freaking youtube video before drunkenly calling me to discuss it. I told him to sell it. Told my friend, his brother, to tell him to sell it and apparently it got through to him and he did so after some chastising from other friends of his. He just wanted it because it's the gun that everyone has.

          All of the above is to say that while total gun control/ban in a place with a history of firearms and a huge population that are against it like the US would simply not work, common sense measures that appeal to the moderates (as most aren't gun nuts or "ban them all" types) is a way to prevent some lives lost at the minor inconvenience of those that abide the laws.

          As for upcoming technologies, they are in the category of weapons of mass destruction and it's only those on the fringes that I've seen that are of the opinion that "right to bear arms" means anything and everything from a knife to a nuke and "shall not be infringed". I disagree with that and see no reason for such weapons to be in the hands of individuals with zero checks and balances. No matter what some think, the president cannot just launch a nuke, there's thankfully a lot of humans it has to go through first, humans with their own thoughts, doubts, and consciences. Humans that can simply say "Damn what will happen to me because of this, but I say NO." If there truly is an asymmetry to it an it is inevitable that it true mass murder is able to be carried out near instantly by a single individual due to the progress of society, then there isn't much to say other than little to no way to know beforehand and we've had a good run. Every generation (or hell, every decade or major advance) has people postulating about how it can be used nefariously and while there's always that tinge of thought in your head of "yeah, that could happen" it's yet to occur for a variety of reasons that are too numerous to list at all, let alone here. Could also be that even with our advancing technology and times it's really never that easy to do or do on a large scale.

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            welly
            Link Parent
            Curious as to what you use your gun (or guns) for? A hobby or self defence? If the latter, have you ever been in a position where you've had to use it? I'm not questioning if you've shot anyone...

            Curious as to what you use your gun (or guns) for? A hobby or self defence? If the latter, have you ever been in a position where you've had to use it? I'm not questioning if you've shot anyone with it but at the very least waved it around at a potential intruder!

            1 vote
            1. AugustusFerdinand
              Link Parent
              A combination of both. I, and my wife, each have one self defense firearm. We have our concealed carry licenses to do so, but neither of us do unless we are going to an area at a time that we feel...

              A combination of both. I, and my wife, each have one self defense firearm. We have our concealed carry licenses to do so, but neither of us do unless we are going to an area at a time that we feel it would be necessary. I've been asked why I don't carry it all the time and about all of the "what ifs" and it's a simple matter of not putting myself in stupid positions, looking at the data, and knowing that "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy. They generally stay on/in our bedside tables should a home invasion occur.

              However today is one scenario where I will be bringing one with me as I am meeting and unknown individual at an unknown (to me) location to exchange a not insignificant sum of money for a car.

              The other dozen or so firearms I have are for target shooting, not suitable for carrying, and are generally of a historical significance or interesting from an engineering standpoint. I collect "cool" guns.

              6 votes
    2. sublime_aenima
      Link Parent
      Not necessarily. My coworker is a shooting instructor for the Army Reserve and him and all his ex-Army pals all have 3D printed guns (in addition to multiple registered pre-built guns) because...

      Not necessarily. My coworker is a shooting instructor for the Army Reserve and him and all his ex-Army pals all have 3D printed guns (in addition to multiple registered pre-built guns) because they are cheaper than the regulated ones. They make their own bullets and then go shooting either on the range at the Army base or out on the remote property of one of the guys.

      8 votes