Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online Build

Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom 656

Posted by timothy
from the please-be-careful-out-there dept.
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it can spread via the Internet and entirely circumvent gun control laws. Two days after that digital weapon's blueprint first appeared online, it seems to be fulfilling that promise. Files for the printable gun known as that 'Liberator' have been downloaded more than 100,000 times in two days, according to Defense Distributed, the group that created it. Those downloads were facilitated by Kim Dotcom's startup Mega, which Defense Distributed is using to host the Liberator's CAD files. And it's also been uploaded to the Pirate Bay, where it's one of the most popular files in the filesharing site's uncensorable 3D printing category."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom

Comments Filter:
  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @10:58AM (#43674927)

    The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @10:59AM (#43674957)

    It's a good thing the Bad Guys that abuse firearms follow those laws!

    Whatever would we do without gun control

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWiTfan (2887093) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:03AM (#43674997)

    Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

    It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

  • by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:09AM (#43675029) Journal

    Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

    Just because you find weapons have no purpose in your life doesn't mean that you can decry someone who appreciates and finds value in weapons.

  • Bullet control (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ehud42 (314607) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:11AM (#43675073) Homepage

    Not to say that DIY'ers can't get around this, but all them fancy guns need fancy bullets. Home made guns will also need decent bullets. So, why not tighten up bullet control:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw [youtube.com]

    (It's Chris Rock)

    I realize lots of hunters, etc reload their own, but I'm not aware of too many DIY'ers who are able to make reliable primers (might be wrong) - so maybe just control the sale and distribution of primers?

  • Re:Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:12AM (#43675093)

    Just like tablets didn't exist before the iPad.

  • Uhm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by noobermin (1950642) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:16AM (#43675137) Journal

    DISCLAIMER: I am a godless liberal in some respects, so I might be biased...but this is becoming like bitcoin, guys. A 3D printed gun is cool to me as a demonstration of the advanced state of the technology, but we don't need a story of even little happening with TEH 3D PRONTED GUNNS (GUBERMIENT, etc).

    Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

  • by cogeek (2425448) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:19AM (#43675165)
    Not sure where you get your statistics of 30,000 people dying per year from guns, but even assuming it's an accurate statistic (huge leap of faith here), according to the US Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf [census.gov] (see here's the difference of just putting a number out there versus data to back it up) 46,800 people were killed in the US alone in auto accidents in 2012. Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles? It would save 16,800 more lives per year than your "fact" of 30,000 people killed by guns each year.
  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:20AM (#43675185) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

    No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:21AM (#43675207)

    No kidding. Any idiot can walk into Home Depot and buy everything you need to make a zip gun in about 20 minutes. It's not like you need to weld and hand forge the damned thing. It's just a pipe and something to strike the primer with.

  • by Ironchew (1069966) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:28AM (#43675263)

    The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

    Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

    Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

    People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

  • by Infiniti2000 (1720222) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:35AM (#43675339)
    Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?
  • by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:41AM (#43675411)

    Suicidal people will find other methods of harming themselves, attacking the instrument used to attempt suicide is sort of missing the point, no?

    Not true at all. If suicide is easy and convenient, the suicide rate will be much higher. Nothing is easier than pointing a handgun at your head and giving the trigger a little tug. Using a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is only slightly harder, but they are used in suicides far less. Homes with handguns have higher suicide rates than homes with long guns, which have higher suicide rates than homes with no guns. So claiming that suicidal people will "find a way" is not true.

    I own a couple long guns (a rifle and a shotgun) and I am a strong supporter of gun rights. I accept a higher suicide rate as a price we pay for living in a free society. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing that there is no trade off, and freedom has no cost.

  • by robthebloke (1308483) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:42AM (#43675429)
    Gun deaths in the US in 2010: 11,078 homicides, 19,392 suicides, and 606 unintentional killings.

    Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

    Because that's a stupid argument, and you already know the answer.

    In the vietnam war, 58,000 american soldiers lost their lives. A large number (but not all) US citizens campaigned for US troups to pull out, and eventually that happened. You see the thing about a democracy is, that you make decisions based on the majority, not the minority. It so happens that an overwhelming majority or americans believe that cars are a good thing, and should not be banned. The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree). They might not agree on everything, but there is general agreement for tighter restrictions. You might not like this, you might not agree with it, but unfortunately, you live in a democracy and therefore have to accept societies wishes I'm afraid. The best thing you can do, is stop making trite arguments, and start making sensible suggestions for compromises that would both be acceptable for you, and for the anti-gun lobby.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:49AM (#43675537) Homepage Journal

    Ammo is the problem. But I can imagine them being created and distributed among gangs. You think urban crime is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet once the basement dwelling production starts.

    Malarky.

    Gang bangers can get a Saturday Night Special for less than $100 on the black market, one that's good for several shots. A 3d printed gun is good for maybe 1 shot, barring catastrophic failure, and use hundreds of dollars worth of material, not to mention the cost of the printer to make them with.

    The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:08PM (#43675845) Homepage Journal

    The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

    For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

    ... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.

    Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.

  • Re: Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lgw (121541) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:20PM (#43676013) Journal

    Those guys aren't concerned about this tech at all right now. You can get an AK-47 kit cheaper than a 3D printer in the US, and that hasn't hurt their business any. Now, many years from now when you can print a gun that looks just like one of the high-end guns from those companies, they'll be up in arms over trademark violations, but that's far off.

    I not sure your typical /.er is aware of this, but annual gun sales have about doubled since Obama took office, and the joke of putting Obama's picture on a "salesman of the year" plaque has gone past common to cliche. The gun industry as a whole is quite happy with the current state of affairs.

  • by femtobyte (710429) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:23PM (#43676049)

    If firearms stop working, every human being is at the mercy of larger and stronger people.

    Fortunately, 100% of larger and stronger people aren't vicious muder-rapist psychopaths just waiting for the chance to rampage over society. I think there are plenty of perfectly nice large and strong people to handle the tiny few who suddenly decide to go rogue. Hey, I already walk around unarmed --- a short, flabby weakling --- and yet don't regularly get beset by burly bandits. With guns, I'm still at the mercy of those better armed, with better marksmanship, and more willingness to initiate violence with the element of surprise (no matter how well-armed a sharpshooter I am, I'm still screwed if a stranger decides to shoot me in the back of my head).

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jythie (914043) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:33PM (#43676209)
    Realistically, this method is not for people who could not otherwise obtain a weapon and is unlikely to ever be. What it does do is produce a physical manifestation of a largely intellectual and ideological point as part of a larger discussion. Such techniques are unlikely to have any impact on actual access to or ownership of weapons.
  • Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jhon (241832) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:55PM (#43677291) Homepage Journal

    "and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already)"

    Here's a question that most people don't consider:

    Given the thought of an "ARMED populous in the US' is in part to insure protection against Government tyranny or to out right overthrow a tyrannical Government" is scoffed at by most, why is it we send arms to "rebels" in other countries (who would otherwise be grocers or cobblers or other benign profession) to help them?

    It doesn't take a lot of people unwilling to live by the common law to cause major problems.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @02:25PM (#43677653) Journal

    Bingo! From Petty criminals to mass murdering despots. The only problem for both is when the victim can fight back.

  • by femtobyte (710429) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @02:34PM (#43677749)

    And when your assailant has a gun, you're 0.1 seconds away from being dead (assuming they aren't polite enough to stop and chat first, instead of just shooting you before you realize what's happening). And, just as guns "empower" physically weak good guys, they also empower every scrawny punk-ass meth-head --- so now, instead of worrying about the one big burly evil dude, my chances of being murdered are multiplied to every cowardly little shit with a pistol (or being caught in the crossfire when a "good guy" goes paranoid vigilante).

    I live unarmed, surrounded by unarmed people, several minutes away from armed response. I also live freely without cowering in paranoid fear. Billions of others on this planet do the same. Stopping crime is far better done by assuring equality and opportunity and decent conditions to all, than by gun-totin' vigilantes patrolling their little violent fiefdoms. When no one's life is so miserable that shooting up a liquor store for $42 looks like an upward career move, there's far less crime. I wish to live in a world where people respect one another out of shared humanity, not fear they'll end up on the wrong end of a gun --- and I'm living my wish.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...