Home > Uncategorized > More On 3D Printed Guns – A Quick Post

More On 3D Printed Guns – A Quick Post

Something that is in the news more and more is the fact that 3D printers are only a few years away from being cheap enough for home use and capable of building all components of a functional firearm. While gun control advocates are inconsolable, either rocking back and forth in the fetal position or being kept awake at night, over the idea that people may so be able to make their own guns, to include criminals, is a ridiculous and typically idiotic response from these people.

It seems that people are under the impression that guns are only available by purchase, when that has never been the case. It has always been legal to construct your own guns and it’s not terribly difficult to do so either. In fact, building guns is a fairly popular hobby. People build them into umbrellas, flashlights, canes, hats, and on and on. All it takes to build a gun is basic machine tools and knowledge, and even fully automatic firearms can be made by amateurs. (That isn’t to say it is legal to possess fully automatic guns, but that fact is only relevant to those with qualms about violating the law.)

One of the big reasons that it has never been made illegal is that it would be totally unenforceable, in much the same way that 3D printing will make most gun control laws toothless and even more ineffective than they are to begin with. If you really don’t think it is already easy to make a gun of your own accord, look at this masterpiece:

9009PrisonZipGun2

That was built by a prison inmate and it was several weeks before it was discovered. Crude? Yes, but it fires and is clearly impossible to prevent. It is just simply that easy to do. The even more ludicrous thing is the proposed magazine ban, magazines can be made right at home with pretty much nothing more than a hammer. If we were to ban all guns (assuming that were even constitutional) far from preventing people from acquiring firearms, it would spawn an even more massive gun trafficking and manufacturing black market. In that way, it would truly be only criminals with guns.

With regard to gun control in a world where it is even easier to construct guns than it is now, the following clip sums it up pretty well:

Just for the record, I’ve downloaded and stored several hundred files that I could use to make gun components if I had access to a 3D printer. I tried to include a few of the files for the gun parts, but WordPress won’t accept the file type. Oh well. It’s not like they are difficult to find. Have a gander at one.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2013/02/23 at 17:22

    If any of the measures proposed will reduce the guns and ammo out there, then they are effective. That there are ways around them is not a valid argument for why we should not implement them.

  2. 2013/02/23 at 19:27

    Well, my view that unenforceable laws are innately immoral is not universal. However, on the whole, if a law cannot do what it seeks to do, the spending of commonly held resources to attempt its futile enforcement is, in my view, immoral.

    Resources are almost always finite, and when it comes to using finite resources you are looking at the very definition of a zero sum game.

    Laws have opportunity costs, like everything else. Using time and money prosecuting a person who has an outlawed 30 round magazine might result in fewer such magazines out there, but that doesn’t mean the law is effective just because it does so. If the idea is to reduce crime, and the law doesn’t actually do that, it can hardly be called effective.

    Maybe the goal isn’t actually to reduce violence, but to reduce the number of arms in civilian hands, even if they contribute nothing to crime and its associated violence. In that case, you are right. So either I’m more or less right and laws like this shouldn’t exist, or you are right and the reason they exist isn’t the reason we are told they exist. Either one is unacceptable.

  3. 2013/02/25 at 10:16

    Laws against murder haven’t stopped people from killing each other, thus they are ineffective, so let’s get rid of them, right? That’s exactly the logic of your argument. The only difference is that more people are willing to break gun laws than they are homicide laws. That doesn’t mean neither set of laws cannot be effective. Indeed, I believe background checks have stopped something like 2 million gun sale since the mid-90’s. We can assume some of the people who were stopped went ahead and found guns on the streets or went to a shop owner that is part of the 1% of dealers who break the law, but do you really think all 2 million did that? Let’s be hugely liberal with a random guess here and say 1 million people skirted the law…do you want 1 million more felons to have weapons? Why do you support putting guns in the hands of murderers, rapists, and other felons, Nate?

  4. 3D Printer
    2013/02/27 at 02:47

    Keep that thought warm and cuddly in your mind while you drive home next to the “texter” that will more than likely kill you. 20% up teen deaths, if cars or guns did that they should be banned. Like sugar for fat people.

  5. 2013/02/27 at 14:05

    Michal, not really. That’s why I say that my view is not universal. The idea is crime reduction in the case of most of the gun control proposals currently on the table, but they will not do that, they completely miss the mark. There is simply no rational, they will not do what they seek to do and are therefor ineffective, the point isn’t guns, it’s killing, something people seem to forget.

    I’m not even against background checks, and what you say is in fact true, 2.1 million is the figure (it’s at least a little over 2 million). Here is the problem, a person who is a felon commits a crime just by attempting to buy a gun, the very fact of the background check being run is evidence of intent. They are never prosecuted! Would 2.1 million people have been denied if the law was enforced? Not a chance. Some still would, but there is simply no risk in making the attempt at present. How many more slipped through the cracks and were able to buy? More than if the law were actually enforced.

    I can’t make sense of you 3D Printer. Have another attempt if you are a real person.

  6. 2013/02/27 at 21:18

    84,000+ people lied or misrepresented their criminal background while attempting to buy a gun in 2012, only 44 were prosecuted for their illegal attempt and who can blame them? Why wouldn’t they try?

    Again, you’ll have to find another piece of legislation or policy if you want to score a blow. That dog just isn’t going to hunt.

  7. 2013/03/08 at 12:18

    Part of the reason it’s so difficult to prosecute these people is being the ATF has been utterly gutted of all its useful power by some scrotebag Republican Senator who receives huge donations from the (utterly moronic) NRA. The reaction shouldn’t be to throw our hands up and say we can’t do anything as a result. The reaction should be to make background checks universal while increasing prosecution. And maybe removing that shitty Senator.

    Also, I would have responded to this weeks ago, but you still need to change your theme so you can get your comment widget back.

  8. cojo
    2013/04/02 at 16:20

    You gut your own argument when you make references such as these:
    “..scrotebag Republican..”
    “..(utterly moronic) NRA..”
    “..sh**ty Senator..”

  9. 2013/04/02 at 18:53

    I missed this comment Michael, at least until now.

    Michael, I’m not opposed to universal background checks, I am opposed to universal background checks as it stands, because at this point, prosecution won’t increase. The ATF and the background check system have gotten better in the last few years, mostly due to legislation the NRA had long lobbied for, modernizing the ATF.

    Although, I’m not sure you understand the problem you are talking about if you think the problem with universal background checks is the ATF, the problem is with US Attorneys, not the ATF. The problem is also that the federal government can’t force the states to put data into NICS. There really isn’t anything to be done about the last bit, but any bill to require universal checks needs to try and provide an incentive for states to participate more fully.

    I’m content with holding universal background checks hostage to force some of the major barriers to these checks effectiveness to be addressed. As it sits, universal checks wouldn’t really do much except annoy people buying guns via private sales, which is no help at all.

    Probably the biggest problem we need to understand is that only .003% of the guns in the US are ever used in a crime, that is the percentage we need to address, and that is a very hard thing to do.

    Cojo, I don’t mind hyperbole, but I agree it doesn’t help his point much.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: