It's going to be hard to make a shape illegal. The shape is widely publicized. Detailed blueprints exist for the lower receiver of an AR-15, which is the only component considered "a gun". The...
It's going to be hard to make a shape illegal. The shape is widely publicized. Detailed blueprints exist for the lower receiver of an AR-15, which is the only component considered "a gun". The rest of the parts are free to buy with no oversight.
This is a bigger problem than trying to ban machine instructions for recreating a shape. The shape is known, but we're not allowed to write a program that prints it? What if someone writes a program that scans a paper blueprint then spits out STL file or gcode for a printer or CNC machine? It's an absurd idea, banning a shape. We're going to have to find a better way to stop this from happening than banning a guy from thingiverse.
Could be, but it could also be like the AACS key leak, where this draws more attention to the issue, causing a ton of people to spread the info as far as they can while finding creative loopholes...
Could be, but it could also be like the AACS key leak, where this draws more attention to the issue, causing a ton of people to spread the info as far as they can while finding creative loopholes in the laws.
It's one thing to prosecute someone creating and selling physical objects, but something quite different to prosecute someone for intangible data that's freely available and still continues to circulate. That won't put the cat back in the bag.
I hadn't thought of that... speaking as someone who downloaded & shared a just-in-case how-to about herbal abortifacents back in the day, I can see where this might happen. There's a fine line...
Could be, but it could also be like the AACS key leak, where this draws more attention to the issue, causing a ton of people to spread the info as far as they can while finding creative loopholes in the laws.
I hadn't thought of that... speaking as someone who downloaded & shared a just-in-case how-to about herbal abortifacents back in the day, I can see where this might happen.
There's a fine line here that I wish was a bit easier to see.
I think so. I'm not terribly creative, but I can't think of anything we could do other than banning the schematics. I wonder if these would show up on the overly-invasive body scanners they use at...
I think so.
I'm not terribly creative, but I can't think of anything we could do other than banning the schematics. I wonder if these would show up on the overly-invasive body scanners they use at airports? Perhaps the raw material could be impregnated with something that makes them show up on particular scanners. Go after bullets instead?
The "Gun" they're 3d printing is a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the only part of an AR-15 that has a serial number, so it's considered in the eyes of the law to be the entire gun. The barrel,...
The "Gun" they're 3d printing is a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the only part of an AR-15 that has a serial number, so it's considered in the eyes of the law to be the entire gun. The barrel, stock, trigger, all the other bits and bobs are untraceable, so you can buy 90% of a gun without any records check. You just need this one block of metal to hold it all together.
So, 90% of the gun would be regular metal gun parts, which would show up on scanners. Plus, an assembled AR15 is like 2 and a half feet long, so, not exactly easy to conceal anyway.
Ah, interesting! I need to do some more reading on this, I think! Do you know if it's possible to safely make the other bits and bobs with a 3d printer? (edit: I guess my question is less 'safely...
Ah, interesting! I need to do some more reading on this, I think!
Do you know if it's possible to safely make the other bits and bobs with a 3d printer? (edit: I guess my question is less 'safely make' and more 'safely use'. I can imagine some bits might melt?)
I'm going to say probably not. At the very least the barrel would probably need to be metal, or many times thicker and only rated for one or two shots I'd wager. The only reason this is feasible...
I'm going to say probably not. At the very least the barrel would probably need to be metal, or many times thicker and only rated for one or two shots I'd wager.
The only reason this is feasible is the fact that you can buy every part of a semiautomatic assault rifle except this square metal bit, with no identification, no background check etc. And then, this square metal bit isn't very complicated, doesn't need to be particularly strong, etc.
I guess the barrel would be a better thing to serialize and track, but then that's not very complex either, and anyone with a decent lathe could make them.
These plastic receivers are rather prone to cracking, and are just generally shitty, as well. An AR-pattern lower receiver does need to be able to withstand some forces being applied to it. A...
These plastic receivers are rather prone to cracking, and are just generally shitty, as well. An AR-pattern lower receiver does need to be able to withstand some forces being applied to it. A common problem with these 3D-printed plastic ones is that the region around this threaded bit on the right-hand side cracks after not too long. That is where the buffer tube, buffer spring, and buffer (a 3-5.5oz weight) goes. The buffer reciprocates during firing to absorb shock and allow the bolt-carrier group to extract the spent round. Another failure point is the holes for the trigger pins will warp after some time.
This is more of an exercise of the First & Second Amendments than anything else, and a hobby project second. It's just not practical as a means of obtaining a reliable firearm. Adding on to that, the rest of the parts to make a barely-decent AR will cost you something like $500, and up to $1,500 or more for a nice one. Plus, 3D printers are still pretty expensive in their own right.
Additionally, it's legal to manufacture a firearm (legally this is what printing this would be) if you are legally able to own a firearm in your jurisdiction (check your local and state laws) and it's for your personal use, and you are not making them in quantity or with the intention to sell — that would be manufacturing without a license and the BATFE will throw the book of law at your face for that.
I'm far more concerned about somebody straw-purchasing (having somebody else buy, this is very illegal) a $150 Hi-Point, or robbing a home of any firearms, than I am about this .STL existing.
Hmmm. Thanks for the explainer! I feel a bit better that there will still be plenty of metal attached to this piece in order for it to function as a gun, that we've got an opportunity to catch...
Hmmm. Thanks for the explainer!
I feel a bit better that there will still be plenty of metal attached to this piece in order for it to function as a gun, that we've got an opportunity to catch these at entry points for gatherings and the like.
Yeah, and like I mentioned it's a rather large gun, so it's not exactly practical to conceal in the first place. I would not worry that one small plastic piece on this monstrosity of a gun would...
Yeah, and like I mentioned it's a rather large gun, so it's not exactly practical to conceal in the first place. I would not worry that one small plastic piece on this monstrosity of a gun would make it easier to get through security. Only that people can get their hands on it without a background check.
It would be more productive to control the number of guns that gun manufacturers are allowed to produce each year and having government and 3rd party inspectors ensure that a limited number of...
It would be more productive to control the number of guns that gun manufacturers are allowed to produce each year and having government and 3rd party inspectors ensure that a limited number of firearms are produced and cracking down harder on black market sales of firearms. Not to mention having mental health check requirements for the purchase of firearms as well.
Those are all actual things that can be done to improve safety and tear down the gun/military-industrial complex. But instead we worry about 3d printing things that are expense and very very small scale.
Ultimately this will come down to the first amendment. I suspect that if it goes to the supreme court, it will be -- and rightly so -- upheld as protected speech. The hysterics around "3d printed"...
Ultimately this will come down to the first amendment. I suspect that if it goes to the supreme court, it will be -- and rightly so -- upheld as protected speech.
The hysterics around "3d printed" (plastic or cnc milling) guns is vastly out of proportion. (An all "plastic AR-15 that will be roaming the streets of our country," to quote Senator Edward J. Markey, (lol), simply won't last or work well -- you need a receiver made of metal.) I mean, blueprints for guns have been distributed through patents forever. Not to mention that making your own gun for personal use is perfectly legal.
It's just a temporary injunction, but I'm hoping that buys the time needed to get this shot down for good. I don't see any upsides to having schematics for 3d-printed guns available online.
It's just a temporary injunction, but I'm hoping that buys the time needed to get this shot down for good. I don't see any upsides to having schematics for 3d-printed guns available online.
It's not enforceable. Moving this to private sites or sites the government can't take down will prevent most people from getting the schematics, but not all. I'm wondering on what grounds a formal...
It's not enforceable. Moving this to private sites or sites the government can't take down will prevent most people from getting the schematics, but not all. I'm wondering on what grounds a formal decision against the distribution of this data would be made.
It's not about guns, it's about intellectual property. The schematics could be for anything; imagine having all parts of a car available for 3d printing. Sure it would be a huge pain to build a...
I don't see any upsides to having schematics for 3d-printed guns available online.
It's not about guns, it's about intellectual property. The schematics could be for anything; imagine having all parts of a car available for 3d printing. Sure it would be a huge pain to build a car that way but it would get the car manufacturers, dealerships and repair shops really worried. You can see this worry in the movie and music and software industry where they've tried to keep intellectual property under close guard and crack down hard on pirates.
The distribution cost for sharing information is near zero. This in turn will reduce other costs.
If you want a non-DIY example, take a look at the battle over generic vs branded medicines and how Western companies try to enforce intellectual property laws that keep prices high.
That's what's at stake here. Intellectual property and who controls distribution of information and how they can keep profits high.
Or maybe I'm imagining too many parallels here. I've only just starting formulating the above chain of reasoning. If it were about safety, the government would be moving faster to implement actual gun control after each terrible mass shooting that has happened in the last few years.
Cody Wilson, the main proponent behind this case was interviewed on BBC's HardTalk program. My impression is that he's an anarchist that wants to watch the world burn, but I could be wrong: the...
Cody Wilson, the main proponent behind this case was interviewed on BBC's HardTalk program. My impression is that he's an anarchist that wants to watch the world burn, but I could be wrong: the interview
It's going to be hard to make a shape illegal. The shape is widely publicized. Detailed blueprints exist for the lower receiver of an AR-15, which is the only component considered "a gun". The rest of the parts are free to buy with no oversight.
This is a bigger problem than trying to ban machine instructions for recreating a shape. The shape is known, but we're not allowed to write a program that prints it? What if someone writes a program that scans a paper blueprint then spits out STL file or gcode for a printer or CNC machine? It's an absurd idea, banning a shape. We're going to have to find a better way to stop this from happening than banning a guy from thingiverse.
Could be, but it could also be like the AACS key leak, where this draws more attention to the issue, causing a ton of people to spread the info as far as they can while finding creative loopholes in the laws.
It's one thing to prosecute someone creating and selling physical objects, but something quite different to prosecute someone for intangible data that's freely available and still continues to circulate. That won't put the cat back in the bag.
I hadn't thought of that... speaking as someone who downloaded & shared a just-in-case how-to about herbal abortifacents back in the day, I can see where this might happen.
There's a fine line here that I wish was a bit easier to see.
I think so.
I'm not terribly creative, but I can't think of anything we could do other than banning the schematics. I wonder if these would show up on the overly-invasive body scanners they use at airports? Perhaps the raw material could be impregnated with something that makes them show up on particular scanners. Go after bullets instead?
The "Gun" they're 3d printing is a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the only part of an AR-15 that has a serial number, so it's considered in the eyes of the law to be the entire gun. The barrel, stock, trigger, all the other bits and bobs are untraceable, so you can buy 90% of a gun without any records check. You just need this one block of metal to hold it all together.
So, 90% of the gun would be regular metal gun parts, which would show up on scanners. Plus, an assembled AR15 is like 2 and a half feet long, so, not exactly easy to conceal anyway.
Ah, interesting! I need to do some more reading on this, I think!
Do you know if it's possible to safely make the other bits and bobs with a 3d printer? (edit: I guess my question is less 'safely make' and more 'safely use'. I can imagine some bits might melt?)
I'm going to say probably not. At the very least the barrel would probably need to be metal, or many times thicker and only rated for one or two shots I'd wager.
The only reason this is feasible is the fact that you can buy every part of a semiautomatic assault rifle except this square metal bit, with no identification, no background check etc. And then, this square metal bit isn't very complicated, doesn't need to be particularly strong, etc.
I guess the barrel would be a better thing to serialize and track, but then that's not very complex either, and anyone with a decent lathe could make them.
These plastic receivers are rather prone to cracking, and are just generally shitty, as well. An AR-pattern lower receiver does need to be able to withstand some forces being applied to it. A common problem with these 3D-printed plastic ones is that the region around this threaded bit on the right-hand side cracks after not too long. That is where the buffer tube, buffer spring, and buffer (a 3-5.5oz weight) goes. The buffer reciprocates during firing to absorb shock and allow the bolt-carrier group to extract the spent round. Another failure point is the holes for the trigger pins will warp after some time.
This is more of an exercise of the First & Second Amendments than anything else, and a hobby project second. It's just not practical as a means of obtaining a reliable firearm. Adding on to that, the rest of the parts to make a barely-decent AR will cost you something like $500, and up to $1,500 or more for a nice one. Plus, 3D printers are still pretty expensive in their own right.
Additionally, it's legal to manufacture a firearm (legally this is what printing this would be) if you are legally able to own a firearm in your jurisdiction (check your local and state laws) and it's for your personal use, and you are not making them in quantity or with the intention to sell — that would be manufacturing without a license and the BATFE will throw the book of law at your face for that.
I'm far more concerned about somebody straw-purchasing (having somebody else buy, this is very illegal) a $150 Hi-Point, or robbing a home of any firearms, than I am about this .STL existing.
Hmmm. Thanks for the explainer!
I feel a bit better that there will still be plenty of metal attached to this piece in order for it to function as a gun, that we've got an opportunity to catch these at entry points for gatherings and the like.
Yeah, and like I mentioned it's a rather large gun, so it's not exactly practical to conceal in the first place. I would not worry that one small plastic piece on this monstrosity of a gun would make it easier to get through security. Only that people can get their hands on it without a background check.
It would be more productive to control the number of guns that gun manufacturers are allowed to produce each year and having government and 3rd party inspectors ensure that a limited number of firearms are produced and cracking down harder on black market sales of firearms. Not to mention having mental health check requirements for the purchase of firearms as well.
Those are all actual things that can be done to improve safety and tear down the gun/military-industrial complex. But instead we worry about 3d printing things that are expense and very very small scale.
Ultimately this will come down to the first amendment. I suspect that if it goes to the supreme court, it will be -- and rightly so -- upheld as protected speech.
The hysterics around "3d printed" (plastic or cnc milling) guns is vastly out of proportion. (An all "plastic AR-15 that will be roaming the streets of our country," to quote Senator Edward J. Markey, (lol), simply won't last or work well -- you need a receiver made of metal.) I mean, blueprints for guns have been distributed through patents forever. Not to mention that making your own gun for personal use is perfectly legal.
It's just a temporary injunction, but I'm hoping that buys the time needed to get this shot down for good. I don't see any upsides to having schematics for 3d-printed guns available online.
It's not enforceable. Moving this to private sites or sites the government can't take down will prevent most people from getting the schematics, but not all. I'm wondering on what grounds a formal decision against the distribution of this data would be made.
It's not about guns, it's about intellectual property. The schematics could be for anything; imagine having all parts of a car available for 3d printing. Sure it would be a huge pain to build a car that way but it would get the car manufacturers, dealerships and repair shops really worried. You can see this worry in the movie and music and software industry where they've tried to keep intellectual property under close guard and crack down hard on pirates.
The distribution cost for sharing information is near zero. This in turn will reduce other costs.
Substitute guns with epipens and you'll see why it's about intellectual property. EpiPen prices became very high, a group of enterprising DIY enthusiasts created the EpiPencil which cost $30 to make. The cost of sharing that information is near zero and the manufacturing cost is low.
If you want a non-DIY example, take a look at the battle over generic vs branded medicines and how Western companies try to enforce intellectual property laws that keep prices high.
That's what's at stake here. Intellectual property and who controls distribution of information and how they can keep profits high.
Or maybe I'm imagining too many parallels here. I've only just starting formulating the above chain of reasoning. If it were about safety, the government would be moving faster to implement actual gun control after each terrible mass shooting that has happened in the last few years.
Cody Wilson, the main proponent behind this case was interviewed on BBC's HardTalk program. My impression is that he's an anarchist that wants to watch the world burn, but I could be wrong:
the interview