Maricopa County Sheriff for 3D printer

[vito]

In the newspaper today was a guest editorial by Paul Penzone, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-sheriff-dont-flood-this-country-with-3d-printed-guns/2018/07/26/38d9a9b8-9052-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe2b43a96744) urging control of 3D printers to prevent those who he thinks shouldn't to make their own firearms. Of course he makes it seem that this is something brand new and not information that was previously available on line before it was taken down while the lawsuit was pending. And while maybe someday it will be a simple matter of buying a 3D printer at the local Walmart and going home and "printing" a gun that same day, right now its a lot easier for someone who is barred from buying a gun legally to buy one illegally than it is to make one on a 3D printer. Most people are not likely to be aware of this change in government policy and might well be thinking that the sky is falling in the illegal gun issue. Had this been Sheriff Dart, or an LEO official from NY or Washington, D.C. it might not surprise anyone, but I have a feeling that the anti-gun folks will make a big deal of this since this Sheriff is from gun-friendly Arizona.

[chicagoresident]

Wait til they learn about Mr. Luty and the hardware store

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

[markthesignguy]

Sheriff Penzone IS an anti and a democrat - he campaigned against Arpaio unsuccessfully in 2012, and in 2016 ran again (Penzones primary challenger in 2016 dropped out "to defeat Sheriff Arpaio in November for the good of Maricopa County citizens.") and won.

 

 

Sheriff Penzone after MSD in Florida shooting:

 

The sheriff also added that there is “no practical use for an AR-15” — the weapon that 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz allegedly used in the Majory Stoneman High School shooting — and raised the possibility of restricting who can possess or control them.

“They should not be as easily acquired,” Penzone said, adding that AR-15s are not hunting or self-defense tools.

[kevinmcc]

3D printers are totally unneeded to make guns. Common hand tools and materials at hardware store are all you need.

[spec5]

Like a criminal is going to take the time to build a gun with a 3-D printer. What a joke. I would like him to tell us how many 3D guns have been used in a crime in AZ or anywhere?

[Tango7]

And the schematics - thanks to freedom fighters and lovers of liberty - is already in the public domain.

 

Sheriff McDumpypants is a little late.

[markthesignguy]

Someone should acquaint the Politician Sheriff with the history of the Sten gun.

 

NO 3D printer needed....

[BigJim]

 

The State Department can stop this from happening by standing by its original decision to prevent digital, downloadable gun files from being posted online.

How would he purpose to do that? Didn't anyone ever tell hm once something is on the interweb it can never be taken back? What a maroon!

[2smartby1/2]

I think it has more to do with making it easier to eventually bypass metal detectors.

 

If someone wants to make their own gun, they can order 80% parts and go from there.

[chicagoresident]

I think it has more to do with making it easier to eventually bypass metal detectors.

 

If someone wants to make their own gun, they can order 80% parts and go from there.

 

I'm glad to see people are still dumb enough to fall for the same drivel as they fell for when polymer handguns were introduced. This lie was perpetrated by Josh Sugarmann probably after watching Die Hard 2.

 

https://youtu.be/ecwK3UMxoxQ

 

It takes a lot more then a consumer 3d printer, even eventually, to make a gun that can't be detected by a metal detector.

 

First, understand metal detectors work off induction, not magnetism. Then find me one heavy element that can be used as a bullet that doesn't conduct electricity, is solid at room temperature, is easy to get a hold of, and isn't radioactive. Oh, and it also can't trip the explosive detectors so that leaves explosive bullets out. Even if you could manufacture such a bullet you'd be in violation of a bunch of other existing laws.

 

The US government has spent approaching the billions in the various underlying technologies that would be required to make undetectable guns and has come up empty handed, yet people believe they're coming from basements of American nerds. Here's one example https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/05/what-happened-the-the-mythical-undetectable-plastic-gun/ It can't even be confirmed if any spy agency has this tech yet, but it's been rumored to exist and is always just around the corner for the last 50 years.

 

I can't tell if our lawmakers are really this stupid, or if they think their constituents are stupid enough to believe their lies. After listening to the Facebook hearing I'm starting to think the former rather then the latter. They literally pass laws based on what they see in movies.

[2smartby1/2]

 

I think it has more to do with making it easier to eventually bypass metal detectors.

 

If someone wants to make their own gun, they can order 80% parts and go from there.

I'm glad to see people are still dumb enough to fall for the same drivel as they fell for when polymer handguns were introduced. This lie was perpetrated by Josh Sugarmann probably after watching Die Hard 2.

 

https://youtu.be/ecwK3UMxoxQ

 

It takes a lot more then a consumer 3d printer, even eventually, to make a gun that can't be detected by a metal detector.

 

First, understand metal detectors work off induction, not magnetism. Then find me one heavy element that can be used as a bullet that doesn't conduct electricity, is solid at room temperature, is easy to get a hold of, and isn't radioactive. Oh, and it also can't trip the explosive detectors so that leaves explosive bullets out. Even a non detectable jacket with a heavy penetrator liquid is gonna be tough to come by.

 

The US government has spent approaching the billions in the various underlying technologies that would be required to make undetectable guns and has come up empty handed, yet people believe they're coming from basements of American nerds. Here's one example https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/05/what-happened-the-the-mythical-undetectable-plastic-gun/

 

I can't tell if our lawmakers are really this stupid, or if they think their constituents are stupid enough to believe their lies. After listening to the Facebook hearing I'm starting to think the former rather then the latter. They literally pass laws based on what they see in movies.

 

It's like how the first Sugarmann assault weapon ban language was probably written by looking at this movie poster. Why does the AWB explicitly forbid a grenade launcher mounting when grenades are already classified as destructive devices? Cuz Rambo had one.

 

FYI Josh Sugarmann has an FFL so he definitely knows he's lying because he does educate himself on guns so ha can ban them. I wouldn't be surprised to see a manufacturers license showing up in his name soon so he can prove to himself it's impossible to 3d print a gun that can get past detection but tell politicians otherwise.

 

 

Polymer handguns still use quite a bit of metal, and have a different purpose.

 

A 3D printed gun won't need much metal at all and probably will not be designed to fire more than a couple of rounds. But even if it is only a one shot, .22....no one wants to get shot in cranium.

 

Yes, the bigger concern is ammo, and then the questions become, what level is the the metal detector set at, what size rounds are you using, and how many rounds can you sneak through? The metals in bullets are detectable, but they are non-ferrous metal...so they are not as easily detectable as other items.

 

 

10 years from now, what will the technology (and cost) be?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/ammo-review-pcp-polymer-308-winchester-ammunition/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/news/a27414/plastic-ammo-textron-cased-telescope/

[chicagoresident]

A 3D printed gun won't need much metal at all and probably will not be designed to fire more than a couple of rounds. But even if it is only a one shot, .22....no one wants to get shot in cranium.

 

10 years from now, what will the technology (and cost) be?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/ammo-review-pcp-polymer-308-winchester-ammunition/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/news/a27414/plastic-ammo-textron-cased-telescope/

Are you saying that 3d printers or gun blueprints/files should be regulated?

 

Have you ever used a 3d printer where you understand the limitations and complexity? Do you believe that 3d printers are easier to make weapons on then past manufacturing technology that's unregulated?

 

Even with polymer shell casings it's still the bullet that's the barrier, as you could build a caseless device. Delrin and a home mill are much more effective at making what you're talking about and that's been around for a long time.

 

Again, it's people that don't know the technology that are attempting to write policy is what scares me.

 

Read up on Philip Luty. He was charged in the UK for the type of pipes you buy at a hardware store in combination with the books he wrote.

 

Do we really need to be restricted to owning stone aged tools, doing a background check at a hardware store, and going to jail over print or electronic words and pictures? That sounds like a totalitarian regime to me.

 

I can go to the library and resale shops to manufacture a nuclear weapon, and you're worried about 22's and 3d printers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

Or how about homemade PVC airguns?

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/lehigh-county/index.ssf/2017/04/killer_used_homemade_airgun_pr.html

 

The intention is not safety, it's to further weaponize laws to jail anyone the government doesn't like. The more things the government can classify as dangerous the more it can stifle free markets.

[chicagoresident]

Delete

[2smartby1/2]

Polymers are changing the game. Here is a polymer/copper bullet.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/polymer-composite-bullet-accuracy-put-to-the-test

 

3D gun + polymer case + polymer bullet? Probably not a lot of metal there, maybe a firing pin, spring, and primer..plus whatever mix of polymer and copper in the bullet itself.

 

Anyway, my point wasn't about people making there own guns. Again, 80% lowers for Glocks and AR's are everywhere....it is a lot easier, cheaper and faster to make a gun at home that way.

 

It was more about guns that would not be picked up by metal detectors. I don't think law abiding citizens will be rushing out to make 3D guns any time soon. I have no desire to own one. But as technology advances (polymers become stronger) AND cheaper (3D printer in every home).....hard to detect weapons could become an issue. However, we may eventually depend on X-rays and chemical detection as opposed to metal detection (or a combination) to detect weapons. Some ceramic knives (that do not have metal in the handle) can already pass metal detectors.

[chicagoresident]

It's the knee-jerk reaction that any new tech will be used for more bad then good, therefore needs to be regulated.

 

Criminal/terrorist behavior is all about the easiest way. After 9/11 I would argue ceramic knives are more dangerous then guns or 3d printers to airplane security. It's also why they've switched to body scanning devices everywhere.

 

When it comes to movie scenarios remember In the Line of Fire http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/In_the_Line_of_Fire

 

Or The Man with the Golden Gun?

 

http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/james-bond-007-movie-posters/the-man-with-the-golden-gun/The-Man-With-T%20he-Golden-Gun-Poster-03.jpg

A more plausible scenario is sneaking gun parts disguised as legal objects. Especially since smokeless powder doesn't show up on chemical swab tests.

 

The idea of normal objects assembled into a gun has been planted in the minds of most Americans for years. Home manufacturering made it possible a long time ago. How come there hasn't been a rash of killings and assassinations with these types of devices?

 

As someone who's machined, 3d printed, and made a zip gun in their youth I can tell you 3d printing is the hardest of these techniques to make something useful out of.

 

Oh, and before anyone claims "there aught to be a law" a disguised firearm is classified by the NFA as "any other weapon" and requires a stamp, not that criminals follow the gun laws.

[2smartby1/2]

It's the knee-jerk reaction that any new tech will be used for more bad then good, therefore needs to be regulated.

 

Criminal/terrorist behavior is all about the easiest way. After 9/11 I would argue ceramic knives are more dangerous then guns or 3d printers to airplane security. It's also why they've switched to body scanning devices everywhere.

 

When it comes to movie scenarios remember In the Line of Fire http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/In_the_Line_of_Fire

 

Or The Man with the Golden Gun?

 

http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/james-bond-007-movie-posters/the-man-with-the-golden-gun/The-Man-With-T%20he-Golden-Gun-Poster-03.jpg

A more plausible scenario is sneaking gun parts discussed as legal objects. Especially since smokeless powder doesn't show up on chemical swab tests.

 

The idea of normal objects assembled into a gun has been planted in the minds of most Americans for years. Home manufacturering made it possible a long time ago. How come there hasn't been a rash of killings and assassinations with these types of devices?

 

As someone who's machined, 3d printed, and made a zip gun in their youth I can tell you 3d printing is the hardest of these techniques to make something useful out of.

 

Oh, and before anyone claims "there aught to be a law" a disguised firearm is classified by the NFA as "any other weapon" and requires a stamp, not that criminals follow the gun laws.

 

First..in terms of "knee jerk reaction.....to more bad than good". Tell me what are the pro's of anyone being able to create their own guns at home that can get through metal detectors? It isn't "knee jerk" to say more bad than good. It is the "potential for bad" outweighs "the potential for good". Again, my point isn't about making your own gun. It is about making your own gun that can get through metal detectors. Outside of saying "I can because....2A"....what is the point? As a useful weapon, it really serves no other purpose other than to escape detection. We all agree that it is far easier and cheaper to build your own weapons at home through different means. This is the type of item (like bump stocks) that will get blow back on gun rights.

 

Secondly...why are you quoting 20, 30, and 40 year old action movies as examples? You gave me a link from 2011 that discussed stuff from the 70's, 80's, and early 2000's. I gave you links from 2017 that discussed polymer ammo types. I specifically put "eventually" in italics in my initial comment because technology improves everyday and cost decreases. 10 years from now, will every home have a 3D printer, and can your 12 year old print off a gun?

"Just a decade ago, the average 3D printer cost more than $100,000. Today you can easily find a good cheap 3D printer for under $500, $300, even $200!"

 

https://all3dp.com/1/best-cheap-budget-3d-printer-affordable-under-500-1000/

 

And third...why are you asking ME why terrorist are not making gun parts out of solid gold that look like pens and lighters modeled off a 40 year old James Bond movie? Is that a serious question? Well....the "pen gun" has been around for a long time. My uncle had one some 30 years ago..it probably won't get past an airport metal detector.....and it seems like it would be cheaper and easier to make bombs out of things like shoes, underwear, and laptops.

 

 

This is one of those "pick your battles carefully" items.

[chicagoresident]

First..in terms of "knee jerk reaction.....to more bad than good". Tell me what are the pro's of anyone being able to create their own guns at home that can get through metal detectors? It isn't "knee jerk" to say more bad than good. It is the "potential for bad" outweighs "the potential for good". Again, my point isn't about making your own gun. It is about making your own gun that can get through metal detectors. Outside of saying "I can because....2A"....what is the point? As a useful weapon, it really serves no other purpose other than to escape detection. We all agree that it is far easier and cheaper to build your own weapons at home through different means. This is the type of item (like bump stocks) that will get blow back on gun rights.

 

So now that we've properly regulated precrime by making possession of certain firearms illegal before someone actually commits a crimes the next target is future crimes? We need to pass laws against existing technology because technology that doesn't exist yet could be used for a crime?

 

Do you read dystopian science fiction as a social policies instruction manual?

 

Guns that don't yet exist that are undetectable by metal detectors is a straw man for regulating at home firearm manufacturing. You do acknowledge that, right?

 

Are you against people having the ability to make their own guns at home totally unregulated? Or are you genuinely worried about something that doesn't exist yet?

[2smartby1/2]

 

First..in terms of "knee jerk reaction.....to more bad than good". Tell me what are the pro's of anyone being able to create their own guns at home that can get through metal detectors? It isn't "knee jerk" to say more bad than good. It is the "potential for bad" outweighs "the potential for good". Again, my point isn't about making your own gun. It is about making your own gun that can get through metal detectors. Outside of saying "I can because....2A"....what is the point? As a useful weapon, it really serves no other purpose other than to escape detection. We all agree that it is far easier and cheaper to build your own weapons at home through different means. This is the type of item (like bump stocks) that will get blow back on gun rights.

So now that we've properly regulated precrime by making possession of certain firearms illegal before someone actually commits a crimes the next target is future crimes? We need to pass laws against existing technology because technology that doesn't exist yet could be used for a crime?

 

Do you read dystopian science fiction as a social policies instruction manual?

 

Guns that don't yet exist that are undetectable by metal detectors is a straw man for regulating at home firearm manufacturing. You do acknowledge that, right?

 

Are you against people having the ability to make their own guns at home totally unregulated? Or are you genuinely worried about something that doesn't exist yet?

 

LOL...

Originally signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

Undectable Firearms Act.

And yes, certain firearms are already illegal simply by possessing them.

 

Technology improves everyday.

Are you saying that the Liberator "without its metal chunk" is detectable? Will a roofing nail/firing pin always get picked? Are you saying polymer bullets are not a new/emerging technology?

 

Besides, You can already make guns at home. Why do you keep conflating the two topics? Making a gun at home, and making an undectable gun at home are two different issues.

 

And I'm still waiting on the "good" in terms of guns that can get past metal detectors. What what you use it for?

[chicagoresident]

LOL...

Originally signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

Undectable Firearms Act.

And yes, certain firearms are already illegal simply by possessing them.

 

Technology improves everyday.

Are you saying that the Liberator "without its metal chunk" is detectable? Will a roofing nail/firing pin always get picked? Are you saying polymer bullets are not a new/emerging technology?

 

Besides, You can already make guns at home. Why do you keep conflating the two topics? Making a gun at home, and making an undectable gun at home are two different issues.

 

And I'm still waiting on the "good" in terms of guns that can get past metal detectors. What what you use it for?

 

I'm not asking can you make guns at home, that's been established. I'm asking do you believe we need to regulate at home firearms manufacturing?

 

You'd have a better argument by admitting your feelings towards at home firearms manufacturing then the straw man of a non existent not technologically possible undetectable easily and cheaply printed handgun and ammunition.

 

Can you admit that you believe the ease of making a gun at home worries you because it puts a gun in the hands of someone that hasn't passed any background checks?

 

Reagan was a champion of gun control, no surprises there. Josh Sugarmann spread a lie that polymer handguns wouldn't be able to be picked up on metal detectors in hopes of getting polymer handguns banned. That's where that comes from.

 

The methods of the gun control activists has remained the same, lie to ban guns and make ownership as onerous as possible.

 

I'm at least assuming you're smart enough not to believe the lies even if you agree with at least some of the end results.

 

Don't worry, there are already bills similar to California's AB 2382 being drafted all over the country that regulates in home gun manufacturing by regulating all the parts of firearms. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/

 

It's why people like me and others here are vigilant, support for these onerous regulations are gaged via mainstream media hyperbole.

[2smartby1/2]

 

LOL...

Originally signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

Undectable Firearms Act.

And yes, certain firearms are already illegal simply by possessing them.

 

Technology improves everyday.

Are you saying that the Liberator "without its metal chunk" is detectable? Will a roofing nail/firing pin always get picked? Are you saying polymer bullets are not a new/emerging technology?

 

Besides, You can already make guns at home. Why do you keep conflating the two topics? Making a gun at home, and making an undectable gun at home are two different issues.

 

And I'm still waiting on the "good" in terms of guns that can get past metal detectors. What what you use it for?

I'm not asking can you make guns at home, that's been established. I'm asking do you believe we need to regulate at home firearms manufacturing?

 

You'd have a better argument by admitting your feelings towards at home firearms manufacturing then the straw man of a non existent not technologically possible undetectable easily and cheaply printed handgun and ammunition.

 

Can you admit that you believe the ease of making a gun at home worries you because it puts a gun in the hands of someone that hasn't passed any background checks?

 

Reagan was a champion of gun control, no surprises there. Josh Sugarmann spread a lie that polymer handguns wouldn't be able to be picked up on metal detectors in hopes of getting polymer handguns banned. That's where that comes from.

 

The methods of the gun control activists has remained the same, lie to ban guns and make ownership as onerous as possible.

 

I'm at least assuming you're smart enough not to believe the lies even if you agree with at least some of the end results.

 

Don't worry, there are already bills similar to California's AB 2382 being drafted all over the country that regulates in home gun manufacturing by regulating all the parts of firearms. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/

 

It's why people like me and others here are vigilant, support for these onerous regulations are gaged via mainstream media hyperbole.

 

No need for condescension.

What we have are two different arguments.

 

For you initial question, my answer is "Yes". Although like most matters, the answer is quite nuanced. 15 years ago, I didn't feel this way. I wasn't (and still am not) opposed to someone being able to make their own firearms...when it required a more special equipment, time, and skill (and was most likely not as effective as a gun you could go buy unless you were super skilled). But now, pretty much anyone with a drill press/hand drill/router can make a lower in is little as 30 minutes (80% Arms jig kit). So the fact that any fool/thug/addict/gang-banger/felon/nut-job can easily pound out a couple of untraceable AR-15's in an afternoon, with no type of background check, bugs the heck out of me. Be it 5.56, .308, .300blk, or .224valk, that platform is dangerous when so easily available to the wrong folks. (Not to mention 80% Glocks). So it isn't that I'm opposed to home made weapons, I just don't like that anyone can pound out an AR-15 in 2-3 hours. Call it a victim of their own success, but the push to make 80% weapons so easily available has soured me on them...which is too bad because I like the concept.

 

3D guns have a somewhat different concern. It isn't the firepower that concerns me. It is the ease of anyone being able to create an untraceable, non-detectable weapon in their home. The technology WILL get better....and cheaper. Trying to argue that it won't is pretending the issue isn't on the horizon. I'm sure we will end up with ceramic firing pins in them soon enough, and I'm still waiting on the "good" that said weapons will provide.

[quackersmacker]

 

 

LOL...

Originally signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

Undectable Firearms Act.

And yes, certain firearms are already illegal simply by possessing them.

 

Technology improves everyday.

Are you saying that the Liberator "without its metal chunk" is detectable? Will a roofing nail/firing pin always get picked? Are you saying polymer bullets are not a new/emerging technology?

 

Besides, You can already make guns at home. Why do you keep conflating the two topics? Making a gun at home, and making an undectable gun at home are two different issues.

 

And I'm still waiting on the "good" in terms of guns that can get past metal detectors. What what you use it for?

I'm not asking can you make guns at home, that's been established. I'm asking do you believe we need to regulate at home firearms manufacturing?

 

You'd have a better argument by admitting your feelings towards at home firearms manufacturing then the straw man of a non existent not technologically possible undetectable easily and cheaply printed handgun and ammunition.

 

Can you admit that you believe the ease of making a gun at home worries you because it puts a gun in the hands of someone that hasn't passed any background checks?

 

Reagan was a champion of gun control, no surprises there. Josh Sugarmann spread a lie that polymer handguns wouldn't be able to be picked up on metal detectors in hopes of getting polymer handguns banned. That's where that comes from.

 

The methods of the gun control activists has remained the same, lie to ban guns and make ownership as onerous as possible.

 

I'm at least assuming you're smart enough not to believe the lies even if you agree with at least some of the end results.

 

Don't worry, there are already bills similar to California's AB 2382 being drafted all over the country that regulates in home gun manufacturing by regulating all the parts of firearms. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/

 

It's why people like me and others here are vigilant, support for these onerous regulations are gaged via mainstream media hyperbole.

 

No need for condescension.

What we have are two different arguments.

 

For you initial question, my answer is "Yes". Although like most matters, the answer is quite nuanced. 15 years ago, I didn't feel this way. I wasn't (and still am not) opposed to someone being able to make their own firearms...when it required a more special equipment, time, and skill (and was most likely not as effective as a gun you could go buy unless you were super skilled). But now, pretty much anyone with a drill press/hand drill/router can make a lower in is little as 30 minutes (80% Arms jig kit). So the fact that any fool/thug/addict/gang-banger/felon/nut-job can easily pound out a couple of untraceable AR-15's in an afternoon, with no type of background check, bugs the heck out of me. Be it 5.56, .308, .300blk, or .224valk, that platform is dangerous when so easily available to the wrong folks. (Not to mention 80% Glocks). So it isn't that I'm opposed to home made weapons, I just don't like that anyone can pound out an AR-15 in 2-3 hours. Call it a victim of their own success, but the push to make 80% weapons so easily available has soured me on them...which is too bad because I like the concept.

 

3D guns have a somewhat different concern. It isn't the firepower that concerns me. It is the ease of anyone being able to create an untraceable, non-detectable weapon in their home. The technology WILL get better....and cheaper. Trying to argue that it won't is pretending the issue isn't on the horizon. I'm sure we will end up with ceramic firing pins in them soon enough, and I'm still waiting on the "good" that said weapons will provide.

 

So you can regulate and outlaw these things to the max, and the bad guys will pay just as much attention to those laws as they do the current ones. This cat is already out of the bag. Making it "illegal" will just divert law enforcement efforts to busting well-meaning good guys, because they are the easy marks.

[2smartby1/2]

So you can regulate and outlaw these things to the max, and the bad guys will pay just as much attention to those laws as they do the current ones. This cat is already out of the bag. Making it "illegal" will just divert law enforcement efforts to busting well-meaning good guys, because they are the easy marks.

 

 

I agree that the cat is out of the bag on the 80% lowers. It still bugs me that it got to this point. The same may eventually happen to 3D guns as that technology gets cheaper and more refined as well (including 3D lowers).

 

The push to have this type of stuff so easily available is what causes the massive push back against it IMO. Yes, there will always be push back, but some items are easier to defend than others. I'm just having a hard time getting behind this one.

[chicagoresident]

For you initial question, my answer is "Yes". Although like most matters, the answer is quite nuanced. 15 years ago, I didn't feel this way. I wasn't (and still am not) opposed to someone being able to make their own firearms...when it required a more special equipment, time, and skill

 

3D guns have a somewhat different concern. It isn't the firepower that concerns me. It is the ease of anyone being able to create an untraceable, non-detectable weapon in their home. The technology WILL get better....and cheaper. Trying to argue that it won't is pretending the issue isn't on the horizon. I'm sure we will end up with ceramic firing pins in them soon enough, and I'm still waiting on the "good" that said weapons will provide.

 

Not trying to be condescending, agree to disagree on the first part.

 

I guess "the ease of creating non detectable weapons" is really annoying to someone that likes to dabble in engineering stuff. Tinkerers have always loved guns, the only time tinkerers become criminals is when governments take away people's pursuit of happiness.

 

I'm beating this to death, but the undetectable at home 3d printed gun is a myth, it won't be here in 10 years.

 

They use body scanners at airports so the undetectable gun is obsolete before it even exists. Medical imaging tech is running circles around material sciences. People will probably die of cancer from the overuse of full body scanners before they get killed by a 3d printed undetectable gun.

 

Material science doesn't follow Moore's law type growth.

 

In a filament additive 3d printing process there's very little strength along the print lines. The strongest 3d printed filament has been around for almost 30 years, it won't magically improve in 10 years for at home machines. The plastic from a 3d printer is so different then the plastic from a composite firearm part.

 

Composite material strength comes from matrices, which is the exact opposite of what an at home 3d printer does. This is what toolpaths optimized to form large matrices look like on a 3d printer.

https://youtu.be/H6ChkSFmBjc

 

Even the above multiaxis printing is nowhere near as strong as the long chain polymer matrices you get from a thermoset process that firearm parts are made of. The US military has only now came out with thermoset 3d printer. They occupy the space of a warehouse. It's a new twist on a 100 year old resin process that hasn't shrunk in size over that time. To get to firearm strength they will need to print within a vacuum chamber, again making it prohibitive for at home tech.

 

With much simpler tool paths and without the very expensive precise filament feed that same robotic arm could carve a solid block of aluminum into the most beautiful AR15 you've ever seen. These industrial robot arms have been around for a while, still not cheap, still not in garages, and still not easy to operate by an unskilled criminal.

 

To make a gun that's undetectable by a metal detector capable of firing a bullet you need ceramics and high strength carbon fiber (not the type you could make at home with sheets, resin, and a vacuum pump) or carbon impregnated polymer.

 

Here's an example of a non metal barrel, carbon fiber woven wrapped ceramic. It's a very expensive R&D project. The barrels might be available in 10 years but the at home process definitely won't.

https://sbirsource.com/sbir/awards/24177-composite-reinforced-ceramic-technology-lightweight-gun-barrels

 

Here is the type of machine that weaves carbon fiber

https://youtu.be/V49Jvz5X_lc

This stuff is also expensive.

 

Here is the machine that makes ceramic barrels

https://youtu.be/zhJhj8J4m9I

Due to the high pressure and heat required to make strong ceramics it's size is limited by physics.

 

This is the type of machine that "prints" usable metal parts. When you see "3d printed" guns that look like their machined counterparts this is how they're made. It's actually sinter forging a printed powder substrate with a high powered laser or electron beam. Again, not coming to your home in 10 years.

https://youtu.be/yiUUZxp7bLQ

 

3d "printed" metal matrixes also need an optimize the tool path for strength. I would doubt high quality tool paths would be shared due to the amount of work and desire to commercialize them.

 

The 3d printed guns you see online are only the receiver, all other parts are metal.

3d printing is a very roundabout and more difficult way to accomplish the same thing that's been done for years with wood, sheet metal, or piping. It's kind of insulting to the people that like tinker when the mainstream media claims "how easy it is to 3d print a gun".

 

 

 

So why are anti-gunners spreading the myth of the undetectable 3d printed gun?

 

Politicians and the media are drumming up this 3d printer frenzy because what they actually want to do is regulate bolts, barrels, fire control groups, and partially complete receivers, along with media showing how to service or build guns.

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/breaking_amendments_to_calif_ghost_gun_bill_would_enact_staggering_new_firearms_parts_regulations

 

Regulating the precision hard to make at home parts is how Europe does their gun control. In some parts of Europe you can buy full auto lowers legally, because common sense dictates why regulate the simplest part of the gun. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/08/hk416-lower-full-auto-parts-sale-europe/

 

I'm sure there will be the string of investigative journalism trying to sell the masses on it.

 

Would you agree that barrels and bolts are more dangerous then receivers (if background checks aren't needed for either)? Do you think the safety of regulating parts is worth the tradeoff of only being able to buy parts through an in state FFL in person? Or being blocked from online gun manuals? Do you still believe the myth of the undetectable gun? Is it fair that politicians and the media use disinformation and lies to sway public opinions to outlaw our hobby?

 

Maybe you're new to the history of gun laws/gun control but this is how it always runs the course. It starts with a lie and ends with a right lost.

[2smartby1/2]

^I'm no so much worried about major airports because I know they will have body scanners. But schools, sporting events, court houses, night clubs, ect....that is a different story.

 

As far as the the making of a 3D gun goes.....doesn't the Liberator work now? Technically, the only metal needed is used is for the firing pin. I know it is not perfect, and uses an expensive 3D machine....but the ground work is there. Including the marketing of polymer bullets (or shells).

 

In terms of the most dangerous part of a weapon. I don't know. I don't think there is a clear answer. AR's are so modular that it is difficult to select any one part...which is part of the problem. The market is already flooded with parts. I have a two complete uppers with sights (never fired), 3 BCG's, 3 or 4 charging handles, at least 3 grips, two butt stocks, a buffer tube, a buffer spring, 2 buffers, a lower parts kitwith FCG, and other assorted parts, all just taking up space in the basement.

 

It is too late to go back and try to change what part is considered "the gun" on an AR...but that leads to my point.....anyone can make the "gun" part of an AR in as little as 30 minutes. The rest can be ordered online. That is basically an end-around in terms of regulations. For some people, it would take less time to make their own lower, than to hop in the car and drive to their FFL to pick one up.