Distributed Defense

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:59 am UTC

http://defensedistributed.com/

GOAL: Develop a fully printable 3D gun
Our initial Wiki Weapon (A) design has no moving parts and relies on a separate, inserted solenoid to fire. We begin with this design to learn from the ABS material itself, but this is a method of trial and error. At $5 per cubic inch, we are at the point where we need outside funds to produce and complete a proof gun. The result of the lessons we learn from WikiWep A will instruct the design and development of Wiki Weapon B, a fully-printable gun comprised of near 100% printable parts.


Basically, this is a group that wants to preserve self-defense rights by making access to firearms easy and ubiquitous - and making it nearly impossible to disarm the populace. Reading through, it sounds a lot like the application of modern technology to this guy's ideas.

They've recently run into some trouble with the company providing their testbed printer, despite not actually doing anything illegal.

As somebody very interested in rapid manufacturing and 3d-printing, I'm watching these guys pretty closely, and I wish them every success. Anecdotally, there also seems to be a bit of a backlash against gun laws in the U.K, probably due to a couple of high-profile cases where homeowners who shot at burglars in self defense were charged with murder, though I know in one case the charges were dropped.

So, thoughts?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:18 am UTC

My main thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with current 3D printing technology.

Guns are pretty dangerous really. I don't like the idea of being able to make one without having the oversight of extreme safety standards.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:23 am UTC

It was bound to happen sooner or later.
I see this as a good thing. With this, you could have restrictive gun laws without severely impacting people's ability to revolt. Instead of having an armed populace, you'd have an instantly armable populace. Guns could be illegal in everyday life, thus keeping the benefits of gun control (yes, I'm on that side, but let's not get into that discussion). But when revolt becomes necessary, people could revolt fully armed.
This could make the 2nd amendment obsolete, if it isn't already (again, a whole another debate).
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Green9090 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:11 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:It was bound to happen sooner or later.
I see this as a good thing. With this, you could have restrictive gun laws without severely impacting people's ability to revolt. Instead of having an armed populace, you'd have an instantly armable populace. Guns could be illegal in everyday life, thus keeping the benefits of gun control (yes, I'm on that side, but let's not get into that discussion). But when revolt becomes necessary, people could revolt fully armed.
This could make the 2nd amendment obsolete, if it isn't already (again, a whole another debate).

Except that guns are useless if you aren't trained to use them properly. There is literally no point to giving the populace infinite guns if that populace has no clue how to use them effectively.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Jesse » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:39 am UTC

Creating homemade guns? That's definitely against the law, in both the US and the UK. Gun manufacturing/sale is controlled and licensed for a reason.

Guns do not make you safer, they just make you more likely to murder someone and I can't see much of a benefit in that. I've never understood the "We need guns in case we need to revolt against the government" crowd, because that government has the army, which has things like unmanned drones and planes capable of bombing your house. No gun's gonna make you safe from that. The thought of giving someone like Ormurinn a gun gives me the same feeling as the Golden Dawn party winning seats in Greece. Utter revulsion.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:52 am UTC

Green9090 wrote:Except that guns are useless if you aren't trained to use them properly. There is literally no point to giving the populace infinite guns if that populace has no clue how to use them effectively.


I'm sure practicing how to use guns will be legal under controlled conditions. And then there are the countries that have conscription. I promise you that there are lots of civilians capable of using guns in say, Israel or Korea.

Jesse wrote:I've never understood the "We need guns in case we need to revolt against the government" crowd, because that government has the army, which has things like unmanned drones and planes capable of bombing your house. No gun's gonna make you safe from that.


Which is why people resort to guerrilla warfare and terrorism. I hear it sometimes works.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Jesse » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:11 am UTC

Guerilla warfare and terrorism generally don't actually *win* you wars. You just hope it lasts long enough for the invading army to go home. Unfortunately in this case, the army would be AT home, with little to no supply chains compared to fighting in a foreign country.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby yurell » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:17 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:With this, you could have restrictive gun laws without severely impacting people's ability to revolt. Instead of having an armed populace, you'd have an instantly armable populace. Guns could be illegal in everyday life, thus keeping the benefits of gun control (yes, I'm on that side, but let's not get into that discussion). But when revolt becomes necessary, people could revolt fully armed.


You're not going to revolt against a modern military with small arms. The most effective 'military' revolt is domestic terrorism (see Ireland), in which the most effective weapon is the IED. Which is illegal anyway.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:51 am UTC

Jesse wrote:Creating homemade guns? That's definitely against the law, in both the US and the UK. Gun manufacturing/sale is controlled and licensed for a reason.


Certainly. Publishing plans however, is protected in the U.S under the first ammendment. It's also legal to use and manufacture home-made firearms in the states, assuming you don't sell them - It's in the article I linked to. The one in the first post.

Jesse wrote:Guns do not make you safer


Not in and of themselves, no. Self defense is a human right though - and people who want to remove the right to own firearms ownership are basically giving a giant "Fuck You" to women and the physically disabled - after all, why should they be able to defend themselves?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby juststrange » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:59 am UTC

Jesse wrote:Creating homemade guns? That's definitely against the law, in both the US and the UK. Gun manufacturing/sale is controlled and licensed for a reason.


False.

In my home state (MD), only handguns are required to be registered. You are permitted to home build rifles, no license, registration, or oversight required. They may not include more than 10 imported parts from the list of no-no guns, but as something like an AK-47 only has 16 parts anyway, that means you only need to replace the 6 and its legal to construct at home from a disassembled imported kit. Consider that the magazine counts as 2 on its own and you are building your own reciever, its very easy with access to basic tools. And perfectly legal. I've got a homebuilt and another in the works, and a few more after that once I get my new garage up and running.

User avatar
LaSargenta
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Gont Port

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby LaSargenta » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:30 pm UTC

Just pointing out that this particular generalization
Ormurinn wrote:...basically giving a giant "Fuck You" to women...
is just that...a generalization. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that as a woman, considering that if someone personally attacks me they will almost always get (or try to get) up-close-and-personal, a handgun is nearly useless. Something small and concealable like a knife up my sleeve or in a boot holster or just my hands, elbows, knees and feet -- WHICH, I hasten to point out, cannot be taken from me and used against me -- are far, far more useful for self-defense if the first line of defense, the use of the brain, fails. Please don't use the symbolic me for your argument.

And, if someone is attacking me from a distance, a handgun won't be any use at all.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:
Green9090 wrote:Except that guns are useless if you aren't trained to use them properly. There is literally no point to giving the populace infinite guns if that populace has no clue how to use them effectively.
I'm sure practicing how to use guns will be legal under controlled conditions. And then there are the countries that have conscription. I promise you that there are lots of civilians capable of using guns in say, Israel or Korea.
Does any of that affect the truth of Green9090's point?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

LaSargenta wrote:Just pointing out that this particular generalization
Ormurinn wrote:...basically giving a giant "Fuck You" to women...
is just that...a generalization. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that as a woman, considering that if someone personally attacks me they will almost always get (or try to get) up-close-and-personal, a handgun is nearly useless. Something small and concealable like a knife up my sleeve or in a boot holster or just my hands, elbows, knees and feet -- WHICH, I hasten to point out, cannot be taken from me and used against me -- are far, far more useful for self-defense if the first line of defense, the use of the brain, fails. Please don't use the symbolic me for your argument.

And, if someone is attacking me from a distance, a handgun won't be any use at all.


To say nothing of the fact that, if you're at a range where a gun matters (and is more likely to help you than harm you) the fact that you're a woman or disabled (and therefore less able to put up a physical fight) no longer matters in the first place.

In short, it was something of a stupid thing to say.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

LaSargenta wrote:Just pointing out that this particular generalization
Ormurinn wrote:...basically giving a giant "Fuck You" to women...
is just that...a generalization. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that as a woman, considering that if someone personally attacks me they will almost always get (or try to get) up-close-and-personal, a handgun is nearly useless. Something small and concealable like a knife up my sleeve or in a boot holster or just my hands, elbows, knees and feet -- WHICH, I hasten to point out, cannot be taken from me and used against me -- are far, far more useful for self-defense if the first line of defense, the use of the brain, fails. Please don't use the symbolic me for your argument.

And, if someone is attacking me from a distance, a handgun won't be any use at all.


It wasn't a symbolic you. It was an idea put to me by a friend in the library I typed the post in, when she pointed out she'd deterred a stalker (in a rural area miles from any other habitation, let alone a police station) with a rifle. If you'd rather carry a knife, I completely support your right to do so - though that's another right you don't have, if you live in the U.K.

If you really are a highly enough trained martial artist or fortunate enough to be tall enough that the odds are in your favour in a physical confrontation with a criminal, then I'm happy for you. That doesn't make the reasoning that preventing access to effective self defense instruments disproportionally affects women and the disabled any less valid.

As for your second point, it really depends what you're being attacked with, if you're being pedantic.

[quote="Belial]
To say nothing of the fact that, if you're at a range where a gun matters (and is more likely to help you than harm you) the fact that you're a woman or disabled (and therefore less able to put up a physical fight) no longer matters in the first place.

In short, it was something of a stupid thing to say.[/quote]

So, to be clear, you don't see any difference in your ability to deter harm when physically frail between an armed and unarmed invdividual? You're under the impression that criminals aren't rational enough to take the possibility that their victim is armed into account?

Image
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:04 pm UTC

I am severely skeptical of them as a group. First, they have jack-all for actual examples as of yet. They point to the achievements of others. Yet, they're doing publicity campaigns and asking for donations. When publicity/money takes priority over development, that's not a great sign.

Hell, when I first went there(when they first were slashdotted), their wiki site included three pages. One was the default title page. One was a blank page where they had kicked in a title only. The last was a linkspam from some SEO bot. That was...not impressive to me.

Additionally, the choice of the .22 round as an initial round indicates that the people in charge didn't bother to even look up chamber pressures. Such a trivial lack of research is...kind of a bad sign. .22 actually has a pretty high chamber pressure(read, blowing the hell up), and thus is a really bad starting point for a printed gun, even if we ignore the added precision needed for the firing pin of a rimfire weapon.

Incidentally, I suspect that the "anyone can just print a weapon" is entirely overblown. I've done some experimenting with this myself, being both a firearm owner and a 3d printer owner...and I'm currently stumped on the firing pin. They experience some very high stresses, and making a functional one out of plastic is non-trivial. If I resort to an off-the shelf metal part there, I can probably print a gun otherwise that will fire once and once only. This is of pretty limited practical value. It's not "anyone can print a gun", it's "anyone with a 3d printer and a substantial amount of experience with it can very slowly print most of a gun that will fire one time, tops". This is rather less dramatic, but is never what gets reported on.

Iulus Cofield wrote:My main thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with current 3D printing technology.

Guns are pretty dangerous really. I don't like the idea of being able to make one without having the oversight of extreme safety standards.


Well, you can do that now. Anyone with access to a hardware store and basic tools can make a gun. They're not exactly high-tech in their basic concepts. Something goes boom, propelling something hard at high speed. So, this is mostly a non-issue, as availability of these things far exceeds the availability of 3d printers.

Jesse wrote:Creating homemade guns? That's definitely against the law, in both the US and the UK. Gun manufacturing/sale is controlled and licensed for a reason.


It's absolutely not against the law in the US. There are regulations if you start selling them, though. Serial numbers and the like.

Jesse wrote:Guns do not make you safer, they just make you more likely to murder someone and I can't see much of a benefit in that.


[citation needed]

If you want to save yourself the time, availability of firearms doesn't seem to affect the murder rate in any statistically measurable way. If they make YOU, in particular safer...well, that likely depends on your particular situation. Guns are neither a panacea nor a plague.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:48 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby felltir » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:46 pm UTC

Saying no-one is allowed a gun is not discriminating against groups that might be less able to defend themselves, Ormurinn.

Carrying a knife makes you less safe.

There is no reason to believe a gun, a far more dangerous weapon, would be any different.
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

User avatar
LaSargenta
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Gont Port

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby LaSargenta » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:It wasn't a symbolic you.

Yes, it was. You used "woman" in a general way, you didn't bring in a specific example like you are doing now.
Ormurinn wrote:It was an idea put to me by a friend in the library I typed the post in, when she pointed out she'd deterred a stalker (in a rural area miles from any other habitation, let alone a police station) with a rifle.

This thread started with 3D-printed handguns, not rifles. I certainly wouldn't trust a 3D-printed rifle. But, yes, a rifle is more intimidating. A shotgun even more so. However, these aren't easily carried about. I live in a city and commute. Adding more to my briefcase is not fun for my back.
Ormurinn wrote:If you'd rather carry a knife, I completely support your right to do so - though that's another right you don't have, if you live in the U.K.

...if you get searched. Middle-class, middle-aged women rarely do. Yup, revelling in my privilege here.

Ormurinn wrote:If you really are a highly enough trained martial artist or fortunate enough to be tall enough that the odds are in your favour in a physical confrontation with a criminal, then I'm happy for you.

You obviously haven't been in many fights. I am 5' 1.75" tall. I actually have a better time of it with a taller attacker. I can get in close and hit hard in sensitive spots and he can't get any distance to slug me. He is reduced to essentially hugging me trying to break my grip and he can't get the front of my neck. Someone my height requires different tactics...like handy anythings that can be turned into weapons. Bike chains are good. I once dealt with it with a mechanical pencil.

I'm not highly trained, I just have a highly developed sense of survival and have, as they say, "been around". Shit happens. When it does, best not to worry about getting dirty.

Ormurinn wrote:That doesn't make the reasoning that preventing access to effective self defense instruments disproportionally affects women and the disabled any less valid.
I question your lumping of these two groups together. I also question your definition of "disabled". There are myriad forms of 'disability' and making an assumption about what would be an appropriate weapon for self-defense is fraught with pitfalls. In addition, most women who are victims of violence are attacked by people they know and are somehow bound to (family, spouse, lover -- or ex-one-of-those) far more often than some stranger on the street.

Ormurinn wrote: As for your second point, it really depends what you're being attacked with, if you're being pedantic.
Pedantic? The accurate range of a handgun is limited. It doesn't matter what I'm being attacked with, but how far away from me the attacker is.

felltir wrote:Saying no-one is allowed a gun is not discriminating against groups that might be less able to defend themselves, Ormurinn.

Carrying a knife makes you less safe.

There is no reason to believe a gun, a far more dangerous weapon, would be any different.


Well put, felltir.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:08 pm UTC

LaSargenta wrote:
Ormurinn wrote: As for your second point, it really depends what you're being attacked with, if you're being pedantic.
Pedantic? The accurate range of a handgun is limited. It doesn't matter what I'm being attacked with, but how far away from me the attacker is.


While this is technically true, it is pretty rare in practice for the citizenry to be attacked by snipers. Most street crime tends to take place at fairly close range. In terms of practical matters, a larger concern is them being too CLOSE for you to draw your handgun in time, not that they're too far away for it to have an effect.

User avatar
LaSargenta
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Gont Port

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby LaSargenta » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:While this is technically true, it is pretty rare in practice for the citizenry to be attacked by snipers. Most street crime tends to take place at fairly close range. In terms of practical matters, a larger concern is them being too CLOSE for you to draw your handgun in time, not that they're too far away for it to have an effect.

There's a lot of different threads of thought within this thread. Street crime/self-defense/armed citizenry, to name 3, not to mention tech troubles with 3D-printed tools. Also, it doesn't have to be a sniper who is doing the attacking to make a handgun not terribly useful...but they aren't as rare as we'd like, and there's not much someone can do against one if they are just driving down the road. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-606757.html

I still say the first defense is using one's brain. And, if it goes beyond that, the best weapon for self defense is one that can't be taken away. And yes, I'm aware of the problem of being too close, I think that was clear in my first post at 10:30 above.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

LaSargenta wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:While this is technically true, it is pretty rare in practice for the citizenry to be attacked by snipers. Most street crime tends to take place at fairly close range. In terms of practical matters, a larger concern is them being too CLOSE for you to draw your handgun in time, not that they're too far away for it to have an effect.

There's a lot of different threads of thought within this thread. Street crime/self-defense/armed citizenry, to name 3, not to mention tech troubles with 3D-printed tools. Also, it doesn't have to be a sniper who is doing the attacking to make a handgun not terribly useful...but they aren't as rare as we'd like, and there's not much someone can do against one if they are just driving down the road. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-606757.html

I still say the first defense is using one's brain. And, if it goes beyond that, the best weapon for self defense is one that can't be taken away.


The vast majority of gun crime is committed with a handgun. The vast, vast majority of crime is committed with a handgun or a shorter range weapon. Hell, even shotguns are not terribly long ranged weapons. Rifle crime is pretty rare(only 4% of murders involving a gun in the US, about 2% of all homicides), and frankly, it's just not practical for most people to lug around a rifle in case a sniper battle breaks out.

So, focusing on handguns for the purpose of self-defense is pretty reasonable.

Edit: I'm also a bit skeptical on the $20k budget considering they were just renting a printer. Mine cost $1600, and I bought it. If your design only works on $100k printers, it's pretty useless for defense distributed's stated aims.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:Creating homemade guns? That's definitely against the law, in both the US and the UK. Gun manufacturing/sale is controlled and licensed for a reason.


It is legal in the U.S. to manufacture any legal firearm (I.E. one not regulated by the NFA, such as automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices, or suppressors). Provided they are not made with intent to sell or distribute, and provided you are a person legally allowed to own a firearm (not a felon, etc.).

Jesse wrote:Guns do not make you safer, they just make you more likely to murder someone


I'm sorry, what?

Jesse wrote: "We need guns in case we need to revolt against the government" crowd, because that government has the army, which has things like unmanned drones and planes capable of bombing your house. No gun's gonna make you safe from that.


I've discussed in other threads how civilian small arms could be used as part of a successful revolution, and how they've been successfully used against modern militaries in the recent past (Afghanistan, Chad, Kosovo, etc.)

Also, I've recently been reminded that protection from oppression doesn't just mean oppression by the federal government. It could be oppression by corrupt local government, oppression by institutional racism and prejudice, Looters, or by local crime syndicates and etc.

Or it could be oppression by some asshole who beats his wife.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Shivahn » Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

LaSargenta wrote:This thread started with 3D-printed handguns, not rifles. I certainly wouldn't trust a 3D-printed rifle. But, yes, a rifle is more intimidating. A shotgun even more so. However, these aren't easily carried about. I live in a city and commute. Adding more to my briefcase is not fun for my back.

I am not sure this is true for most people. It certainly isn't for me. Handguns are much scarier, both in the abstract "it can be easily concealed!" and in the immediate "looks scary" category. They're also much more often used in crimes and such.

I'm pretty comfortable around rifles and shotguns. Handguns, less so.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

uHey guys? The gun Control debate has been done a bunch of times. And unlike with 'is this rape or consent' which gets shut down in every thread it gets brought up in, there are actually several threads dedicated to this discussion. You could go thee and actually be on topic. How cool would that be? Pretty cool, I think.

Iulus Cofield wrote:My main thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with current 3D printing technology.
I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with plastic. Regardless of what technology you use to mold and shape it.

Unless, of course, the handgun they are going to produce is about this size:
Image
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:30 pm UTC

You can 3D print metal. I've seen aluminum done via laser sintering. I doubt the tolerances are tight enough to produce a reliable handgun, but as was mentioned before, reliability is probably not a factor at this point.

This story is really just a good thought experiment, as this technology will become cheaper and more ubiquitous, resulting in questions like the legality of gun printing being more and more pertinent.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:You can 3D print metal. I've seen aluminum done via laser sintering. I doubt the tolerances are tight enough to produce a reliable handgun, but as was mentioned before, reliability is probably not a factor at this point.

This story is really just a good thought experiment, as this technology will become cheaper and more ubiquitous, resulting in questions like the legality of gun printing being more and more pertinent.


If we do CNC, then sure...cncguns.com is already a thing. Anyone who has a CNC machine of sufficient quality can download a pattern and crank out a gun right now. Additive printing is another way to get the same end result...though IIRC, it's not quite as strong for steel, it's certainly adequate to produce a somewhat functional weapon.

Unfortunately, it looks like they're focusing on plastic because they're targeting the type of 3d printers people actually own. Plastic's burst strength is not traditionally great. You also have to worry about layer separation from the 3d printing process. In addition, the burst strength of plastic normally decreases sharply if you heat it(especially suddenly). These are not at all good properties for a firearm. Sure, there are specific parts where plastic can be used with little risk. Grips, for instance. AR lowers(as has already been done elsewhere). But 100% plastic is going to fail very, very quickly. Just getting it to make it through one round without failing in a way that injures the user is non-trivial.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:uHey guys? The gun Control debate has been done a bunch of times. And unlike with 'is this rape or consent' which gets shut down in every thread it gets brought up in, there are actually several threads dedicated to this discussion. You could go thee and actually be on topic. How cool would that be? Pretty cool, I think.

Iulus Cofield wrote:My main thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with current 3D printing technology.
I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with plastic. Regardless of what technology you use to mold and shape it.




Well yeah, it's much easier to make a firearm with basic machines tools. A small CNC mill costs about as a consumer/hobbyist 3d printer and can pretty easily make a functioning handgun (including many of the fine mechanical components) from bar-stock.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:This story is really just a good thought experiment, as this technology will become cheaper and more ubiquitous, resulting in questions like the legality of gun printing being more and more pertinent.
Unfortunately, I predict something like what has happened with digital music, where governments and existing businesses are way too slow to acknowledge and react to the inevitability of this sort of thing. They'll enact laws and policies that don't actually do anything to solve the "problem", and in so doing deny that other approaches might be more effective.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But 100% plastic is going to fail very, very quickly. Just getting it to make it through one round without failing in a way that injures the user is non-trivial.

I think this is the reason their machine was repossessed. While CNC is an established technology, 3D printing is pretty new, and they don't want their name associated with stupid people injuring themselves.
gmalivuk wrote:Unfortunately, I predict something like what has happened with digital music, where governments and existing businesses are way too slow to acknowledge and react to the inevitability of this sort of thing. They'll enact laws and policies that don't actually do anything to solve the "problem", and in so doing deny that other approaches might be more effective.

I don't think there's much they can do, short of banning 3D printers altogether. You can't stop the signal, so the programs will be out there, and you can't very well ban plastic or metal powder, so really the only thing to regulate is the printers themselves.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:22 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But 100% plastic is going to fail very, very quickly. Just getting it to make it through one round without failing in a way that injures the user is non-trivial.

I think this is the reason their machine was repossessed. While CNC is an established technology, 3D printing is pretty new, and they don't want their name associated with stupid people injuring themselves.


This is likely. The legal thing is probably a dodge(and one that DD is not likely to have the legal cash to fight), and they just want to avoid the bad PR. I should note that Stratasys is actually a pretty big player in 3d printers, and is, through various names, the maker of many of the popular consumer printers. So, they may want to consider buying/building a reprap or similar. I don't think that them blowing a bunch of money on being a firearms manufacturer is going to actually solve any problems for them.

I don't think there's much they can do, short of banning 3D printers altogether. You can't stop the signal, so the programs will be out there, and you can't very well ban plastic or metal powder, so really the only thing to regulate is the printers themselves.


Practically, no, you can't stop sharing. But they can make stupid laws that try to.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby johnny_7713 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Unfortunately, it looks like they're focusing on plastic because they're targeting the type of 3d printers people actually own. Plastic's burst strength is not traditionally great. You also have to worry about layer separation from the 3d printing process. In addition, the burst strength of plastic normally decreases sharply if you heat it(especially suddenly). These are not at all good properties for a firearm. Sure, there are specific parts where plastic can be used with little risk. Grips, for instance. AR lowers(as has already been done elsewhere). But 100% plastic is going to fail very, very quickly. Just getting it to make it through one round without failing in a way that injures the user is non-trivial.


Many good points. I do feel compelled to point out that 'plastic' can mean any of a very broad variety of materials, with very different properties. The sub-set of those that are suitable for 3D-printing is probably much smaller however (I'm not sure what the requirements for 3D printing are).

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:31 pm UTC

johnny_7713 wrote:Many good points. I do feel compelled to point out that 'plastic' can mean any of a very broad variety of materials, with very different properties. The sub-set of those that are suitable for 3D-printing is probably much smaller however (I'm not sure what the requirements for 3D printing are).


They're using ABS - with regards to making a gun, it could be better, could be worse, as polymers go. The really interesting developments are going to come in 3d printing when you can reliably print multiple materials in a single job.

Tyndmyr, (welsh name?) in your experiments with home firearms, have you come across any particular configuration that's worked well whilst incorporating printed parts?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby omgryebread » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:10 am UTC

If this seriously doesn't make you a bit concerned... how? Tyndymr's reasons why it actually wouldn't be that easy is somewhat reassuring, but making guns more easily available to those who shouldn't have them is by no means a good thing.

I mean, sure, it probably can't be stopped. Neither can meth use: that doesn't mean the proper response is to encourage it. (Nor is the proper response necessarily to outlaw it, of course.)

If you're sane and responsible enough to have a gun, you should be able to get one without overwhelming obstacles without printing it. If you're not, it should be as hard as we can reasonably make it to get one.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:28 am UTC

3d printers are not that widespread, and the printers are more expensive than many legally obtained firearms. Illegal firearms are also widely available to criminals without much effort (often cheaper via theft or other illegitimate sources).

On the other hand, efforts to make firearms using 3d printing may solve engineering problems that could lead to other advances, and may also involve new printable materials, such as various composite materials or even printable ceramics.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:38 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:My main thought is that I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with current 3D printing technology.
I'm extremely skeptical that a reliable and safe gun, not to mention one with actually working moving parts, can be made with plastic. Regardless of what technology you use to mold and shape it.
Well yeah, it's much easier to make a firearm with basic machines tools. A small CNC mill costs about as a consumer/hobbyist 3d printer and can pretty easily make a functioning handgun (including many of the fine mechanical components) from bar-stock.
And I would fully support an initiative to encourage more shop class.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:29 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:If this seriously doesn't make you a bit concerned... how? Tyndymr's reasons why it actually wouldn't be that easy is somewhat reassuring, but making guns more easily available to those who shouldn't have them is by no means a good thing.

I mean, sure, it probably can't be stopped. Neither can meth use: that doesn't mean the proper response is to encourage it. (Nor is the proper response necessarily to outlaw it, of course.)

If you're sane and responsible enough to have a gun, you should be able to get one without overwhelming obstacles without printing it. If you're not, it should be as hard as we can reasonably make it to get one.


The problem is that people have different definitions of "those who shouldn't have them." The current U.K government definition of "people who shouldn't have [handguns]" is every civilian. This is a serious problem when portable firearms are such an essential part of providing the right to self defense to the physically less able. It's also a massive obstacle to those who want to engage in handgun sport (the British Olympic pistol teams famously have to train on the Isle of Man).

There wouldn't be a need for this project if people sane and responsible enough to own guns (i.e the vast majority of people, judging by those we allow to possess and use automobiles - which are far more dangerous) were able to get them without overwhelming obstacles. That's kind of the point.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby BlackSails » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:26 pm UTC

I cant wait for 3d printer technology to advance to the point where the RIAA commercials on "you wouldnt download a car" can be answered with "I can and I have"

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby yurell » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:I cant wait for 3d printer technology to advance to the point where the RIAA commercials on "you wouldnt download a car" can be answered with "I can and I have"


Those warnings at the start of DVDs annoy the shit out of me. "No, I wouldn't steal a car, not because I believe in some corporation's inherent right to control the distribution of vehicles for great profit, but because it would mean someone would lose a car, which would be bad. If I could stay at home and magic a replica of one into existence for free, however, I would without hesitation. Now stop with these ludicrous false equivalences and let me watch the movie I paid for, because if I pirated this movie I wouldn't have to watch this crap."

In short, I'd love to be able to print a car, too.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
some_dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:33 am UTC
Location: Denmark

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby some_dude » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:22 pm UTC

The problem is that people have different definitions of "those who shouldn't have them." The current U.K government definition of "people who shouldn't have [handguns]" is every civilian. This is a serious problem when portable firearms are such an essential part of providing the right to self defense to the physically less able. It's also a massive obstacle to those who want to engage in handgun sport (the British Olympic pistol teams famously have to train on the Isle of Man).

There wouldn't be a need for this project if people sane and responsible enough to own guns (i.e the vast majority of people, judging by those we allow to possess and use automobiles - which are far more dangerous) were able to get them without overwhelming obstacles. That's kind of the point.


If you don't like the current gun control laws, the correct response is to try to influence politicians to change the laws; not to abuse a new technology to circumvent them. That you don't agree with a law doesn't give you the right to break it.
Last edited by some_dude on Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

yurell wrote:
BlackSails wrote:I cant wait for 3d printer technology to advance to the point where the RIAA commercials on "you wouldnt download a car" can be answered with "I can and I have"


Those warnings at the start of DVDs annoy the shit out of me. "No, I wouldn't steal a car, not because I believe in some corporation's inherent right to control the distribution of vehicles for great profit, but because it would mean someone would lose a car, which would be bad. If I could stay at home and magic a replica of one into existence for free, however, I would without hesitation. Now stop with these ludicrous false equivalences and let me watch the movie I paid for, because if I pirated this movie I wouldn't have to watch this crap."

In short, I'd love to be able to print a car, too.


Preach.

OT - rapid manufacture/microfactories offers the chance of a fully free and unrestricted market, with all the goodies that entails. When object piracy gets to the same level as file piracy, thats the IP monopoly gone - along with planned obsolescence. Lots of mutualist/Distributist fantasies are on the verge of coming true. It's exciting.

For a Mutualist view on this I'd recommend Here.

some_dude wrote:If you don't like the current gun control Apartheid/Jim Crow/Anti-Union laws, the answer is to try to influence politicians to change the laws; not to abusea new technology favourable circumstances to circumvent them. That you don't agree with a law doesn't give you the right to break it.


Self defense is a human right every bit as important as the right to organise into unions or the right not to be opressed on your own land. If a law is unjust you absolutely have the right to break it - that's a philosophical principle going back to Aquinas.
Last edited by Ormurinn on Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:31 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Distributed Defense

Postby Red Hal » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

3D Printing is the first step of many along the road to a post-scarcity society. Such a society would be a very hostile environment for traditional capitalist organisations. No wonder they want to shut it down.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pex and 22 guests