Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Kujako]

The printers themselves are great. Just slap those that use their guns with felony possession of an unregistered firearm.

But it's a smooth bore gun, it does not need to be registered and you can legally make one if you want. As people have been doing since the advent of guns. It has yet to be a problem (name the last major crime committed with a zip gun) and 3D printers wont change this.

26 USC §5845(e) Any other weapon

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

[hakujinbakasama]

But it's a smooth bore gun, it does not need to be registered and you can legally make one if you want. As people have been doing since the advent of guns. It has yet to be a problem (name the last major crime committed with a zip gun) and 3D printers wont change this.

26 USC §5845(e) Any other weapon

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
It's legal even if it did have a bore.

and porn... the printing press, VCRs, the world wide web, etc are all porn driven.

So war and porn. Sums up humans I think.

Dammit... I forgot porn.

[Rukentuts]

But it's a smooth bore gun, it does not need to be registered and you can legally make one if you want. As people have been doing since the advent of guns. It has yet to be a problem (name the last major crime committed with a zip gun) and 3D printers wont change this.

26 USC §5845(e) Any other weapon

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

If the technology advances enough where a 3D printer can churn out comparable firearms, I think they should be classified under the law as unregistered firearms.

[Tinykong]

If the technology advances enough where a 3D printer can churn out comparable firearms, I think they should be classified under the law as unregistered firearms.

How is this any different than being able to manufacture one with a FlowJet or machining tools? Until we get to the point where you can put a block of plastic into a printer from Best Buy, push a button and get an assault rifle out of the other end, the expertise and expense required to produce these weapons is no different than current machining processes.

[Dillon]

If the technology advances enough where a 3D printer can churn out comparable firearms, I think they should be classified under the law as unregistered firearms.

What and where is this registration you speak of?

[vaeevictiss]

If the technology advances enough where a 3D printer can churn out comparable firearms, I think they should be classified under the law as unregistered firearms.

why? you can already make your own legally and its not a problem. Im willing to bet you will not find one self made ar15 ever used in a murder. You can actually go online and buy what is called an 80% lower. Its basically a block of aluminum that sorta resembles an ar15 lower receiver. The amount of skill and machine work to turn it into a working firearm is far beyond that of someone hell bent on committing murder. When someone wants to commit murder, they arent going to take the time to learn and master a new trade just to make a device that will kill someone.

[Rukentuts]

How is this any different than being able to manufacture one with a FlowJet or machining tools? Until we get to the point where you can put a block of plastic into a printer from Best Buy, push a button and get an assault rifle out of the other end, the expertise and expense required to produce these weapons is no different than current machining processes.

"If the technology advances" was inserted for the reasons you stated.

---------- Post added 2013-05-10 at 01:41 PM ----------

What and where is this registration you speak of?

I can't tell if you're being serious, sorry.

[Kujako]

why? you can already make your own legally and its not a problem. Im willing to bet you will not find one self made ar15 ever used in a murder. You can actually go online and buy what is called an 80% lower. Its basically a block of aluminum that sorta resembles an ar15 lower receiver. The amount of skill and machine work to turn it into a working firearm is far beyond that of someone hell bent on committing murder. When someone wants to commit murder, they arent going to take the time to learn and master a new trade just to make a device that will kill someone.

I would say this is because someone who can make an AR15 has used guns enough to have respect for them and is less likely to misuse them. The gun control issue to me is about the idiot who buys an AR15 as their first gun and keeps it loaded in his 300 square foot city apartment. Yes he should be allowed to own the gun, but he should have enough self control to not do it as it poses a threat to those around him.

[Kalyyn]

Would you have a service to register 3d printed guns for legal owners? (I assume so)

There's really no point. Have you seen these printed guns? I could make a better gun out of stuff from the hardware store. And I don't have to register that. Registering a gun that breaks the first time you shoot it is just silly.

[Gemini Sunrise]

There's really no point. Have you seen these printed guns? I could make a better gun out of stuff from the hardware store. And I don't have to register that. Registering a gun that breaks the first time you shoot it is just silly.

I sincerely doubt it will be like that forever. Technology marches on and all that.

[Jaxi]

I don't know. All I know is that these codes shouldn't be accessible to criminals.

Guns in general shouldn't be accessible to criminals. If you'd like to stop the availability of these blueprints on the internet, you first need to tackle the pirate menace.

[Tinykong]

I sincerely doubt it will be like that forever. Technology marches on and all that.

Not if the Chicken Littles in government have any say over it.

[Kalyyn]

I sincerely doubt it will be like that forever. Technology marches on and all that.

It is certainly possible that one day you will be able to print yourself out a functioning M249. But for that to happen, two advances have to be made: We need to be able to print metal (doable, but currently impractical) and it needs to be cheap enough to actually matter.

Once both of those conditions are met, it's game over for any sort of gun control. We'd be about as successful at regulating gun printing as we are at regulating music piracy. You could sign a billion new laws, and it wouldn't slow people down a bit.

[Gemini Sunrise]

It is certainly possible that one day you will be able to print yourself out a functioning M249. But for that to happen, two advances have to be made: We need to be able to print metal (doable, but currently impractical) and it needs to be cheap enough to actually matter.

Once both of those conditions are met, it's game over for any sort of gun control. We'd be about as successful at regulating gun printing as we are at regulating music piracy. You could sign a billion new laws, and it wouldn't slow people down a bit.

Exactly. And I'm fairly sure it's going to come around through developments in other things (ie: completely incidental).

[belfpala]

Exactly. And I'm fairly sure it's going to come around through developments in other things (ie: completely incidental).

It will, because the printing technology is going to be pushed by plenty of forces beyond the desire to print guns.

I just imagined a scenario where, perhaps, the government requires a control to be built into printers that prevents them from printing known gun parts. But then I also imagined Crafty Hacker Guy cracking that on day 1 and posting the instructions on how to unlock your printer in his blog.

In other words, I feel it's inevitable and not worth fighting against.

I would prefer energy go towards solving social issues that make people feel the need to have a gun for self defense in the first place.

[Kalyyn]

I would prefer energy go towards solving social issues that make people feel the need to have a gun for self defense in the first place.

Better yet, we could take better care of our citizens (especially in the area of mental health) so that they can own guns, and not feel the need to use them for evil.

[Breccia]

I'm fairly sure the NRA would lobby heavily against printed guns.

The idealist in me says the NRA has always stood for responsible gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, and home defense, none of which sound viable with a gun that dies after 10 shots. Also, their public stance on gun safety (they work with the Boy Scouts, for example) seems contrary to a gun that might explode when you shoot it.

The cynic in me says the NRA represents the ideals of gun manufacturers, who would certainly lose market share if "anyone" could make a working inexpensive gun. It would be in their monetary interest to squash that.

Either way, I can't think of a reason the NRA would say "meh, whatever" should the option of making a printed gun become realistic and widespread.

[tombstoner139]

It will, because the printing technology is going to be pushed by plenty of forces beyond the desire to print guns.

I just imagined a scenario where, perhaps, the government requires a control to be built into printers that prevents them from printing known gun parts. But then I also imagined Crafty Hacker Guy cracking that on day 1 and posting the instructions on how to unlock your printer in his blog.

In other words, I feel it's inevitable and not worth fighting against.

I would prefer energy go towards solving social issues that make people feel the need to have a gun for self defense in the first place.

A clear head. a rarity in theses here parts. you recognize the issue and need for regulation, but are wise enough to not hop on the band wagon of feel good, but not address the issue legislation.

You seem grounded in reality. want to fix gun violence give people a future..... my god its so simple...but it costs too much. lets have back ground checks ,a gun registry and ban large clips instead.......

Next people are going to be up in arms about 3d printed bombs, knives, swords, arrows.... all sorts of dangerous things i can make out of "plastic".

A basic bike shop has all the tools needed to make a minigun..... nuf said. you will never stop a sufficiently determined criminal. They will find a way around every law.

besides a 3d printed gun is actually an IQ test in disguise.

People should realize 3d printed gun are stupid. however extra large clips that where banned 5 years ago. Those i can now print out and load up in violation of the law.

Guns are not the issue. Its what people do with them...

[steale]

It will, because the printing technology is going to be pushed by plenty of forces beyond the desire to print guns.

I just imagined a scenario where, perhaps, the government requires a control to be built into printers that prevents them from printing known gun parts. But then I also imagined Crafty Hacker Guy cracking that on day 1 and posting the instructions on how to unlock your printer in his blog.

In other words, I feel it's inevitable and not worth fighting against.

I would prefer energy go towards solving social issues that make people feel the need to have a gun for self defense in the first place.

NO! Common sense! Get it away! Gunz iz ebul!!!

throwing this out again because it makes me laugh every time, and i want to brighten someone's day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SANIgy9os

[Svifnymr]

It is certainly possible that one day you will be able to print yourself out a functioning M249. But for that to happen, two advances have to be made: We need to be able to print metal (doable, but currently impractical) and it needs to be cheap enough to actually matter.

Once both of those conditions are met, it's game over for any sort of gun control. We'd be about as successful at regulating gun printing as we are at regulating music piracy. You could sign a billion new laws, and it wouldn't slow people down a bit.

You'd also have to wonder about this future point, where the 3d printer is cheap enough and durable enough to allow you to build a stable gun for cheaper than getting a gun elsewhere... why would you be printing off a gun anyway? By then, you can just print out whatever you want, so who are you going to rob?