3D Printed Guns Might Lead To Law Changes In Australia 245
angry tapir writes An inquiry by an Australian Senate committee has recommended the introduction of uniform laws across jurisdictions in the country "regulating the manufacture of 3D printed firearms and firearm parts." Although current laws are in general believed to cover 3D printed guns, there are concerns there may be inconsistencies across different Australian jurisdictions. Although there aren't any high-profile cases of 3D printed weapons being used in crimes in the country, earlier this year a raid in Queensland recovered 3D printed firearm parts.
regulation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making money isn't the motivator for the state and thus that is completely irrelevant.
Australia has no 2nd amendment equivalent and no history of a need to violently overthrow its own government (they used their words so to speak, and will again if the bulk of the people ever decide to go the way of a republic) and thus far less opposition to prohibition of firearms - with a bunch of exemptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a branch of the NRA in Australia that needs to look into this?
Not that I don't think they're not looking into this in the States, but, you know, TFA and all...
Though I'm sure you're well aware as Slashdot readers are about the irony in your own statement; guns outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, yada yada.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Outlaw "yada yada" all you like. At least we'll still have Lobster Bisque.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Stupid question here. How would such laws stop bad guys.
Let's assume that an honest guy was considering printing a gun. He obeys the law. Number of lives saved? None. An honest person would not commit a murder whether they have a gun or not.
Now, let's assume that a person has a 3D printer and actually intends to print a gun. Will this law stop them? No -- since they are already planning to break the law, breaking another will not stop them. Number of lives saved? None.
So, please tell me how th
Re: (Score:3)
Meth labs and hydroponic setups are banned too, but that does not stop them.
So is murder and child rape. What was your solution?
Instructing someone else is already a crime
Instructing them in what is a crime in this country? (or are conspiracy and incitement synonyms for instruction?).
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, the point of the law is to indicate what is OK and what is not OK, and to provide punishments for those that break the law.
In murder and rape, there is a victim. For ponzi schemes, there is a victim.
If a guy gets a gun and blows a bunch of holes in a piece of paper, who is the victim? If a woman gets a gun to protect her from her crazy ex-husband, who is the victim?
The point here is that OWNERSHIP of a gun is NOT bad. It is what you DO with the gun that actually matters. Cracking down in owne
Re: (Score:2)
Re:regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
try uttering such common sense in the usa
why are so many americans such fucking morons when it comes to the simple undeniable truth: more easy guns = more senseless death, not protection
As a non-American I always assume it is connected with the mythology of the Wild West or Frontiersman type of rugged individualism, which to be fair is fairly recent history (in European terms). Personally, I prefer civilization, but the "one-man-and-his-gun against the world" idea clearly appeals to many modern US citizens, even if they're living in a city apartment block and working in IT.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Personally, I prefer civilization"
Please name one Oppressive state/Tyranny without any gun control laws. You claim you prefer civilization, but history proves that Humans can and will elect dictators on a regular basis. They get elected, then start instituting all sorts of rules and regulations for "security" reasons, and then ... quietly assume "President for life" status, often through the legal and legislative processes.
And, it is clear from your post you have no idea how vast our country actually is, w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, this is why gun nuts love their guns so much. They positively fantasize about the government becoming an oppressive state so they can start shooting people. Look at all the success the gun nuts have had in preventing the government from spying on everyone, everything, and everywhere! Look at how those 300 million plus guns in the hands of the citizens have stopped the government from murdering unarmed civilians, both domestically and abroad! Or maybe they just want to kill so-called liberals and have a
Re: (Score:2)
Look at all the success the gun nuts have had in preventing the government from spying on everyone, everything, and everywhere!
That's just a recent example. Look at what happened in WW2, where gun owners bravely prevented actual rounding up of US citizens and putting them in camps.
(Incidentally, you might want to think about how well it would have turned out if those citizens being rounded up armed themselves for protection from the oppressive government.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All countries have some gun control laws, so I'm going to interpret the question as talking about gun control at the rough level of the US or lower.
There have been several such countries in recent history. Ba'ath-era Iraq is probably the most obvious example. Pakistan has a bit of a human rights problem, too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because you are TOO TRUSTING of government in Europe. Also reflected by the % of GDP you trust the government with.
America's murder rate has a LONG way to go to equal the megadeaths of wars started by out of control European governments in the 20th century.
Re: (Score:2)
At this moment, as rare as it might be it does happen,
Do you have actual stats on the frequency? Context is important after all. After all, people fall down and die in bathtubs more often than your scenario happens -- and its the reason you need a gun. But what have you done to make your bathtub safe?
don't you have the right to defend yourself with the finest armament of your choice?"
Why? Because your life *might* be at some point be at risk? Therefore you should, nay, MUST have the means to kill people via point-and-click in your closet? Maybe its not-reasonable, but I'm not convinced by your argument that its the only reasonable conclusion.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to type up a long and detailed rebuttal to your fantasy scenario outlined above, but Jim Jeffries said it better than I ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Howard gun laws didn't do anything? How many mass shootings have there been in Australia since those laws were passed in 1996?
That's right. Zero.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
why do we have so many guns but still have rape, robbery murder, etc as high as if not higher than countries with common sense gun control?
isn't the gun supposed to protect you?
isn't the mythology that owning a gun makes you safer?
so where's the increase in safety?
there is none
what there is is an increase in death:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/... [conferenceboard.ca]
having a gun in a tense situation simply means death may come where death does not need to come. and just not for the perp. in fact, with easy guns, the perp has a
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is not that simple unless you have an explanation for how the availability of guns leads to a proportional increase in deaths via other means like knives, blunt object, and other items which can be used as weapons. Their may be a violence problem, something which is misleadingly high relative to other nations when they report crime differently, but it i
Re:regulation? (Score:4, Informative)
Simple. IT ISN'T TRUE.
How about using (gasp) some FACTS! Hard to believe, but if it were true, you should be able to prove it.
Australia has greatly tightened its gun laws since 1996. Let's look at the great change.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool... [aic.gov.au]
According to this, in 1995, guns accounted for 18.38% of all murders. In 2012, guns accounted for 17.5% of all homicides. Yes, less than one percent drop! WOW! WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
OK. Gun homicides DID go down quite a bit, but so did knife homicides and blunt object homicides. Did Australia ban all knives and clubs? Yes, the police hassle people who carry such things in public, but you can have a bunch of cricket bats and very large knives in your home in Australia.
The homicide rate went down overall, but the proportion of weapon used did not seem to change much as at.. This points to some other cause for the drop in homicide. Some people point to less lead in the environment -- removing lead from gasoline and paint, for example.
So, tell me. Where is your proof?
Oh, and in the US, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Copy this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter plot of "Gun Ownership" and "Murders." Add a trend line. Look: more guns = less homicide (a weak trend, but it is there). Hey, the District of Columbia has the most murders and the least number of guns (wow, go figure). Delete that row. Look, the trend is still there -- weaker, but still there.
Now, I ask you: where is your proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and one more thing. While the murder rate in Australia has declined in the last couple of decades, it has actually declined MORE in the USA. But, since people against gun ownership have to cherry-pick their data, you will probably ignore this fact too.
Re: (Score:2)
try uttering such common sense in the usa
why are so many americans such fucking morons when it comes to the simple undeniable truth: more easy guns = more senseless death, not protection
When I see consistent evidence of such. Last time I checked by comparing pre and post gun ban statistics, what you say was not the case. Over all, while deaths by gun diminished, the actual murder rates did not. The idea that more easy gun mean more senseless death seems to be an unsupported assumption rather than shown causation. There are lots of other factors involved in gun bans. People who want to commit murder can still commit murder. Guns are not death incarnate. Without lots of training, they tend t
Re: (Score:2)
In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.
So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:regulation? (Score:4, Insightful)
<quote>However, today, the reasons given (by the gun lobby) seem to be heavily oriented toward individual protection. </quote>
There is a good reason for this. Not only is the U.S. not going to be invaded by a traditional army, as you said, but trying to make that argument just gives cannon-fodder for the 'other side'.
The self-defense case, however, is well grounded and supported by the facts. It is well documented that the incidence of homicide by firearm (around 10,000 per year) is orders of magnitude less than the number of crimes prevented by the use of firearms (2,500,000 is the number commonly cited from the FBI's crime statistics, and in some statistics, up to 200,000 women protect themselves from attackers each year by using firearms).
You can go to almost any gun-board and find lots of people sympathetic to that reasoning, not because they are looking for an excuse to protect their gun collecting and shooting sports hobby, but because they themselves were part of that 2.5m statistic.
Within the last few months, my fiance fended off a home intruder using a firearm I had left with her. She didn't need to fire a single shot, but the peace of mind it afforded her was unquestionable.
But it is a complicated issue as well. Both sides are fighting from fear. Most firearm owners LOVE firearms. Just like people love motorcycles or fine watches. They are carefully crafted and finely crafted pieces of engineering. There is a huge body of maths and physics behind internal, external, and terminal ballistics that everyman can share in. One can build their own custom AR-15 just like one might a gaming computer. One can compete with fellow enthusiasts in international shooting competitions and with organizations covering the whole gambit of firearms. To us, it is unthinkable that someone might want to take that away, and we are terrified of that. I'd feel the same about my motorcycles or my dog (which, by the way, one is about 50x more likely to be attacked by a dog than to be harmed by a firearm).
On the other hand, lots of people have an irrational fear of firearms built by ignorance and portrayal in the media as being exclusively the tools of death. Or maybe some even have a rational fear of firearms, but it is hard to find an argument against firearms that isn't grounded in fear.
Two sides anchored in fear leads to some really nasty fighting that probably isn't healthy for a sane debate.
[quote]it's also subtly encouraged the paranoid belief of the tyranny of our existing government. I think this is illogical, but many today here don't.[/quote]
To be fair, given the Snowden/Manning leaks, the LEO drone usage controversy, the police brutality thing... it is hard not to be paranoid.
My biggest fear is that our society is devolving into one like Aus or the U.K. have which pass permanent and pretty severe rights-restricting laws as knee-jerk reactions to whatever moral-panic of the minute ends up being, whether it be guns, vehicles, first amendment issues, or porn.
I was reading a bit about the NYS SAFE Act which was railroaded through the NYS legislature, at midnight, using a special loophole to go against the NYS constitution to prevent it from being debated, and signed into law within half an hour after passing.
The idea that a group of politicians from one city in a state could circumvent the democratic process whenever it tickles their fancy... that terrifies me. No matter what the issue is.
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments are rational, sane, and I agree with most of what you said. (WTF am I doing here?)
There's the bit about "Aus" and "rights-restricting" that needs clarifying. 1. most of the recent firearms ownership laws came about because a nutjob killed a lot of innocent people at Port Arthur. Said nutjob was able to get hold of a semi-automatic rifle to perform his tragic deeds. Subsequent firearm restriction received almost universal support from both sides of politics, i.e. our democratically elected rep
Re: (Score:3)
Owning weapons is a common law right, however statute has the power to override and essentially revoke common law rights. As a result, we have no guaranteed rights in Australia (because our constitutions don't define any, except for free political speech and a right to vote, no those are the only two protected in our constitutions), because the parliament can just change it immediately.
So now we're seeing our democratically elected representatives debate, adjust, and they will pass laws regarding metadata r
3D printed guns are no different to any other gun (Score:4, Informative)
3D printed gins are no different to any other home-made gun.
It doesn't matter if its 3D printed, machined with a lathe, hand-forged by a blacksmith or made on a production line, its still a gun and is still just as illegal or legal as any other gun (depending on what sort of gun it is and what jurisdiction you are in)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This will make having an illegal firearm well within reach of the majority of the population (of course you'll still have to get some ammo for it).
There are some pretty nice black powder revolvers out there. You could print one of those. Say, a nice .50 caliber Morgan. Historical and massive!
Prohibition never works. Only making a better society does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are right in that it may be a good idea depending on the country. Australia doesn't have a multi billion
Re: (Score:2)
How do you make the rifled barrels for your AR-15s and AK-47s?
In the US you may be able to easily buy one but in Australia getting a barrel seems to be just as hard as getting a full gun (at least from my understanding)
Re: 3D printed guns are no different to any other (Score:2)
An ar-15 is fairly complicated to make from scratch. But rifling a barrel is something 5hat pre-dates the industrial revolution and can easily be done by hand. But you don't need rifling to kill someone at close range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even within the US we have historical examples of where murder was either effectively legal or outright legal provided provided the parties involved were of the correct types.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are societies out in the world where murder is socially accepted. In some cases, it's expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't do that by arming every idiot who thinks they need a gun.
No, you do it by reducing the number of idiots, by educating people. Then your people are responsible enough to own guns (or whatever) and you don't have to engage in prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that I still support free education, do you?
Yes. And Health Care, too, just in case you're wondering. As opposed to Health Insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That approach has worked well in the US.
It hasn't been tried here, so how could it work?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW15CGAiscw
Democide - death by government.
If you want to be unarmed when YOUR government decides to start killing you, good luck with that. You idiot. Gun ownership REDUCES crime, the evidence from the U.S.A. is overwhelming.
"As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
Still, don't let the FACTS get in the way of your religiously held (i.e.
Re:3D printed guns are no different to any other g (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the rest of the developed world reports reports homicides only after convictions which lowers their apparent crime rate to a fraction of its true value. In the US any homicide using a firearm whether justified or not counts as a gun death. When our police shoot someone in the back who is fleeing, that counts as a gun death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's the difference between Oz and the US. In the US, we have these things called 'rights', which are inherent in every citizen. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are a collection of rules that protect these rights from the government- this is one reason why the 18th Amendment failed so spectacularly. One of these rights says that we get to keep things that go bang. That's why we don't have to justify owning a gun. A citizen shouldn't have to justify anything to his government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are other sorts of violent deaths acceptable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is my dog always going to be awake, uninjured and in the same room as me?
May depend on how it is defined (Score:2)
After all what is a gun? I mean it may seem intuitive but I mean really think about how you write a formal definition that includes everything you want to regulate but isn't overreaching and hits things you don't. It's not the easiest thing in the world.
So, maybe the law needs to be changed to deal with a new development. Would hardly be the first time. Sounds like that's what they are evaluating.
Re: (Score:3)
You're being disingenuous. Much of the control of private firearms involves the _sale_ or transport of the weapons. Few home workshops, and few home gun smiths, can make a reliable extended magazine or rile action from scratch, they'd require extensive training in precision machining. But now people like Cody Wilson are publishing designs to make exactly such mechanisms for AR-15 equivalent assault rifles ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
Few home workshops, and few home gun smiths, can make a reliable extended magazine or rile action from scratch, they'd require extensive training in precision machining. But now people like Cody Wilson are publishing designs to make exactly such mechanisms for AR-15 equivalent assault rifles
You can mail order 80% finished lower receivers for AR-15s. To finish them is not very difficult, little more than "punch holes here" and "shave off this much metal here". This is the "firearm" portion of the gun. The rest of the gun (trigger mechanism, upper receiver, furniture) are all legally mail order as well with no background check.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who did that is an experienced manufacturer of AK-47 rifles, with access to all the right tools. The AK-47 is not a "precision" firearm to begin with, the fit and finish are pretty loose compared to other rifles, leading to it's legendary reliability.
Re:3D printed guns are no different to any other g (Score:4, Informative)
True, the difference is not in the gun itself, but in the means of production. A 3D printer requires little skill to operate (or soon will), lowering the bar to making a gun for most people. People making home made guns with a CNC machine or even by hand has not proven to be a big problem in most countries. It isn't clear yet if 3D printed guns will be a problem or not, but it seems like law makers want to get in ahead of time.
Plus it means they can throw some extra charges at anyone they arrest who happens to own a 3D printer. Law enforcement is always looking for new ways to apply some additional stress on people it questions, even if most of the charges are eventually dropped as completely baseless.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that very few people have the skills to hand-forge such a part, or access to the heavy-duty equipment to set up a production line for it. 3D printing is vastly more available.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'forge' is where the metal stock you make into a part is made. Any non-toy CNC machine can cut mild steel. Heat treatment shops, just heat treat, they don't care what the part is (unless it's particularly cool/sick).
Ya think... (Score:2)
law is fluid, it changes as it's required and a gun is a gun.
milling? (Score:2)
But milling weapons is ok? Like, the normal traditional way of making rifles that's been in used for some hundred years?
3d printing seems a bit ineffficient compared to a CNC mill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But milling weapons is ok?
No, but there are not enough home milled weapons around to pay attention to the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if a lathe is affordable, it's still not very widespread. And there's more skill involved in using it, plus you need the right materials, design and tools to make a useful gun.
With a 3D printer, any moron can download a design, and hit the big print button.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and any moron can blow off his hand the first time he goes to use it. 3D printers are not that easy to use. There are many variables that can affect the quality of the print. Even small variations in room temperature can make a difference in the quality of the print. When you're printing 3D trinkets or a case for a Raspberry Pi, this probably doesn't matter too much. But when you're printing something like a firearm th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have done a decent job of grinding/hardening the ways for that kind of money. +- How many thou?
To build a good Lathe you need a surface grinder. To build a good surface grinder you need a good lathe.
Once you have a good surface grinder and lathe you can build any other machine tool (you'll have to start with a mill first). That's the history.
Re: (Score:2)
So how many thou +-? The fact you might have built your own doesn't prove anything.
You reused the hard parts of an old lathe and claim to have built it? Did you also buy your own screw? Of course you did. Chuck? Of course. Drive? Of course.
You built a lathe out of junkyard parts. You didn't 'make one'.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if a lathe is affordable, it's still not very widespread. And there's more skill involved in using it, plus you need the right materials, design and tools to make a useful gun.
With a 3D printer, any moron can download a design, and hit the big print button.
However, they are more widespread than 3D printers, and the designs out there for tools are a lot more useful than anything for a 3D printer. Better to say that any moron will, eventually, might be able to download a design and hit the big print button when the state of the art on 3D printers and designs will allow. Currently, they can do the same thing for cheaper and come up with a better result using CNC machines with just as much skill and training as it would take to use a 3D printer.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more of Australia's moral panic/kneejerk policymaking in action.
the new fear: affordable automation (Score:5, Insightful)
governments/TPTB are becoming increasingly concerned that the average citizen could get pissed off and instead of being powerless (as they have been for centuries), they may actually be capable of doing something. In this case it's criminals getting guns with nefarious intent but honestly, this is the tip of the iceberg. We are nearing the tipping point between the people being dependant on governments and companies for things like food and electricity and being self-sufficient. The prospect of "we don't need you anymore" should scare them too because it's when the current social organizational system will start breaking down. It might take a few decades but thanks to affordable automation and openly shared progress, people will start dropping off the grid in droves, not because they can but because it's easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that's a problem for the government ?
Re: (Score:2)
who would work for the government if they didn't have to work at all?
Re: (Score:2)
If nobody needs the government, the government doesn't need people working for them, so the problem solves itself. Of course, we're nowhere near the point that we can 3D print our own stuff. We can't even 3D print a functional lego brick, let alone a working cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Lazy people. Same as today.
"High-profile"? (Score:2)
Although there aren't any high-profile cases of 3D printed weapons being used in crimes in the country
"High-profile" might be a bit redundant. I doubt any crime involving a 3D printed weapon will get treated as "low profile" for a while yet.
Or it could just be the author's fancy way of saying "I haven't heard of any such cases."
naff all to do with guns... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is definitely distressing that the way a large portion of the global population is being exposed to 3D printing is with this "printable gun" scare. Now instead of seeing it for the fantastic technology that it is and spending creative energy finding beneficial uses for it, a lot of people won't be able to see it as anything but a dangerous device that needs to be heavily regulated for the sake of public safety. 3D printers should be something everyone will have in their own home within a decade, not some
Re: (Score:2)
It's less the ease of which you can get around the restrictions, more the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place and the public perception that they are necessary. Do you want your neighbors fingering you as a potential psychopath ready to snap and go on a mass murdering spree just because you had the sheer audacity to feel like you can do what you want with your 3D printer?
Really, all it's going to take is one news story about some nut who shot someone and just happened to have a 3D printer in
What about CNC milled parts? (Score:2)
In a perfect world (Score:2)
In a perfect world every criminal would 3d print their guns. Think how much safer we would all be after their plastic weapons blow up in their faces!
The rest of us would build them from metal using lathes. Imagine a world were everyone (well everyone now that the criminals have removed themselves) has that kind of DIY skills!
Why the hell would anyone want to stop the criminals from offing themsleves?
Next ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullets just require a mould, which anyone can buy or make, and some wheel weights, sailing weights, or lead from any number of sources, and a cheap gas furnace.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you make a trigger it's an 'other gun' and is 10 years federal.
Yes, I am planning on draining the next gun buy backs funds with 100 zip guns. And making a 5 figure payday in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia as a nation of free men.
That's not how it got its start.
Just think of this as the guards tossing your cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuckwit!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take you up on that challenge.