Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Technology Build Your Rights Online

The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired 717

On Friday, we mentioned that Defense Distributed had created a (near-enough-to) fully 3-D printed pistol. Sparrowvsrevolution now writes that "Last week, the Liberator was fired for the first time at a firing range and successfully shot a .380 caliber bullet using a remote firing setup. Over the weekend, Defense Distributed's founder, the anarchist and radical libertarian Cody Wilson, was bold enough to try firing it by hand. The results of that test, witnessed by a reporter, indicate that the era of the 3D-printed firearm may be upon us, for better or for worse." Predictably, certain politicians are — so to speak — up in arms about it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:16AM (#43639937)

    Don't care if OP likes Mr. Wilson or not, but spreading false information is simply childish. Cody Wilson is not an "anarchist". He is a CRYPTO-ANARCHIST. There is a tremendous difference. I would have thought the /. crowd would know the difference, but I guess ignorance knows no boundaries.

  • Re: That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:22AM (#43639961)

    Nah its about the bribery. The gun industry needs their profits so they lobby for no gun control. 3d printing guns would reduce profits so it must be banned.

  • Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:22AM (#43639963)

    You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

    This is why 3D printed guns are a game changer: the average Joe Blow can get himself a gun without needing any sort of gunsmithing skills.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:25AM (#43639975)

    This isn't about guns, this is about speech (the ability to communicate this design or download the design from the internet). So Congress shouldn't have any problem passing a law. All that they would need is someone to explain that you could design a pressure cooker with it.

  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:18AM (#43640155)
    This is a repost. I first put this up when the previous article about printed guns went up, and I was modded down to minus one million, which was no big surprise. Gun nuts live in a fantasy universe where they are John Wayne, and the bad guys wear black hats and are always destroyed by the guy in the white hat (i.e the gun owner). If you even hint that there are negative consequences from guns, they scream like you are trying to remove their dicks. So I post this again, and I expect the same mod down and moronic replies.

    Sill, I would like one pro gun person to admit that a printed gun will kill somebody, and not just some drug dealing child molesting scum, but a real live human being who didn't deserve to die. Like a kid who thinks that it's a toy. So man up for once, and admit that guns kill people. Just face the truth once, and stop complaining that I'm a "stupid liberul", or that you have a constitutional right to own a gun. That's not relevant. Dead people are relevant. So if you have a shred of integrity, stop dodging the question. Who will be the first person to be murdered by a printed gun? And all the other examples that follow:

    When will the first murder occur with a printed gun?

    When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?

    When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?

    When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?

    When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?

    When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?

    When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?

    These are the real world events that no-one in the pro-gun world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if these will happen, but when.

  • Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trepidity ( 597 ) <> on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:19AM (#43640157)

    It's perhaps a commentary on the state of craftworking skills in the U.S. that making a rudimentary, one-shot gun is now considered too high-skilled for a regular person to do. The level of skill and equipment needed is basically at the level of a 1950s high-school metalworking class.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:19AM (#43640159)

    Does ANYONE think that someone who wanted a gun for nefarious reasons could only now get one?

  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Freddybear ( 1805256 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:07AM (#43640339)

    Drugs are banned so there are no drugs on the street, right?

  • Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wienerschnizzel ( 1409447 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:09AM (#43640353)

    Gun related crimes are not being done using legally held weapons. You're no better off with a printed gun than you are with a black market S&W. In one case you leave traces of your presence in the black market, in the other you leave traces of downloading the schematics from the internet. In the long run owning a 3D printer and gun schematics will be equal to having the means to murder someone. If your average Joe Blow has an opportunity and a motive on top of that, he'd still get busted.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:09AM (#43640355)

    But I think I just need to say... I'm for it.

    I know the anti gun people aren't going stop. That's fine. Neither will we stop.

    I am not a violent person. I don't believe in using violence as anything but a means of defense. Truly.

    That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.

    Imagine if someone came to take away your right to vote? Would it matter what reasons they came up for it... what excuses? Unlikely. That is where I am on the issue. And I'm not alone for what that is worth. I don't think most of us are violent or desire violence. We simply believe we're entitled to be dangerous. I'm free. I'm a citizen. You should fear me. Not because I'm crazy. But because the free are powerful.

    This gun... this technology... It made me cry the first time I saw it. To me, its beautiful. And I will protect it. This is a flame that will not go out.

    I regret if this offends anyone. That is not my desire. I see in this a weapon that might one day free the world. Naive? Perhaps... but possibly this is the beginning of something glorious.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ElectricTurtle ( 1171201 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:22AM (#43640423)
    "Gun crime" is down. That is not the same as "all crime". You can be beaten to death by somebody who's completely unarmed. Is it really that comforting to know somebody was murdered without a gun instead of with a gun? What nonsense. Hell, if I were picking methods to be murdered by, I'd rather be shot. It's faster and less painful on average than having the shit beat out of you. But yeah, keep singing yourself lullabies about "gun crime" because guns are so important, maybe it will calm you down as you bleed out after some punk shanks you in some dark alley.
  • by krygny ( 473134 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:27AM (#43640439)

    Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fearofcarpet ( 654438 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:32AM (#43640471)

    As to winning debates - facts seem to be far too rarely considered in moderation or "winning" debates on Slashdot.

    While that may be true, you cited the Cato institution, Fox News, something called "," the WJS opinion page, opinion pieces in the Boston Globe, The Telegraph, and The Washington Examiner, something called "," a weasel-worded gallop poll, and an article from the Hill that is quoting the the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointing out that a couple of democrats in Montana and South Dakota aren't toeing the gun-control line. These articles all make the argument that we need more guns and less regulation because guns make us safer. Lastly, you pulled out that old canard that the UK has a higher crime rate than the US to really drive the point home. But you cleverly avoid delving into the type of crime.

    Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita [] is 10.23 in the US and 0.25 in the UK. The only countries (of the 75 listed) with higher rates than the US are: Panama, Mexico, Columbia, South Africa, Brazil, Swaziland, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Jamaica. Interestingly, the country with the lowest rate, Japan, has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world []. Of course, I'm not suggesting a causal relationship, but I will point out that the presence of a gun is a prerequisite to any form of gun violence.

    Do you see the difference?

  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:38AM (#43640503)
    Yep. And it's also illegal to kill another person, which has also stopped the violence!
  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:53AM (#43640579)

    The newspaper article links to their source []. Their headline is embarrassingly misleading for what's supposed to be a serious newspaper.

    The homicide rate is higher in the USA, the rape rate is higher, the major assault rate is higher, the car theft rate is higher.

    In England and Wales the burglary rate and non-major assault rates are higher.

    Is it really that comforting to know somebody was murdered without a gun instead of with a gun?

    Yes. Knives and sticks are less dangerous: it's far easier to run away, and much clearer what the criminal is intending to do (it takes more movement on their part). It's also very difficult to accidentally kill bystanders.

  • In many ways, owning and USING a gun is the ultimate vote. After all, the Second Amendment speaks of maintaining a free state, not hunting. . .
  • Simple math (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustOK ( 667959 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @08:05AM (#43640647) Journal

    1st ammendment + 2nd ammendment = right to print arms

  • Re: That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <salgak AT speakeasy DOT net> on Monday May 06, 2013 @08:08AM (#43640665) Homepage
    Bad ammo causes weapon damage as well. And plenty of people build their own guns: you can build an AK-format rifle cheaper than buying one, although it DOES take some fairly common shop tools. . . .So the "public health" issue is a straw-man argument. If you really wanted to, you could build a simple single-shot pistol or shotgun with hand tools and perhaps $10-20 of common parts available in any store that sells plumbing supplies. . .
  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thruen ( 753567 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @08:08AM (#43640667)
    Worst. Thinking. Ever. "Current laws aren't 100% effective, so let's not bother with them anymore." This suggests you don't support any law against anything, ever, because it might not be 100% effective. I'm hoping that's not the case, and if it is, may your wish come true and your neighbor shoot you and take your stuff, because laws aren't going to stop him anyway. Beyond that fatal flaw in this silly argument, your comparison is drugs. Certain key differences between the drug and gun markets make it an absurd comparison. Without going into far too much detail, the big difference is that guns start off being sold legally before they hit the streets. I don't mean guns legally purchased are stolen, I mean the laws are so lax that criminals have numerous ways to get them through legal channels. They'll either have someone else purchase the gun for them, or see a corrupt gun dealer to buy them off him. What's important about this? Their means for acquiring guns is still based entirely on the LEGAL AVAILABILITY of them. If they weren't so easily available, there wouldn't be so many on the street. I find it disturbing that so many people gloss over this basic piece of logic. Guns are only so available to criminals because it's so easy so get them legally. Now, I'm not for taking everyone's guns away as NRA nuts seem to think everyone opposed to them is, but I do see a dire need for reform, and polls suggest that almost all of America agrees. The problem is while we're all saying, "Just let us run better background checks and get rid of huge loopholes people use to avoid them!" there's a small percentage of people shouting back "You can't have our freedom! The constitution says we can have guns!" and it's making it impossible to come to an agreement.
  • Re:That's nice (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @09:01AM (#43641089)

    Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.

    Problem is, (1). surely the Police should be sorting out these problems rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands, (2). you give examples of older people using guns to defend themselves... but you're missing the point that they still needed to do that, so the guns DID NOT PREVENT crimes being at least attempted, (3). I have no data, but I rather suspect that given a thug/criminal with a gun vs. decent, law-abiding individual with a gun, in most situations, the former will have the upper hand on account of the fact that the law-abiding individual isn't expecting whatever crime that's happening to happen right then.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by asylumx ( 881307 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @09:02AM (#43641099)
    We should legalize murder, then, right? Criminals don't follow the law anyway.
  • You're right, I don't own a gun and I support our rights to own guns. I see the minority, those that want to remove the 2nd Amendment, trying to shout and scream things like "think of the children" in order to do this. Thankfully the minority has yet to manage it.

    Stronger background checks? Go for it. Assault weapons ban? Get a clue, no way. When the cosmetics are what's used to make decisions common sense has left the auditorium. Magazine limits? Seriously? Our reps don't even realize that magazines themselves can be reloaded let alone that it's possible to swap magazines and continue firing. Printable magazines are also available BTW although I'm told that this is actually a difficult thing to do correctly, something to do with the spring. More people are killed by automobiles in this country and yet we focus on guns. That's okay though as our cars are already so fat it's disgusting as they strive to swaddle us ever more in protective devices. I'm betting more than one person in Boston is a new gun owner after the fallout from the Marathon bombings and I don't blame them. If a manhunt in an urban neighborhood wasn't a wake up call I don't know what is.

    BTW, unless you've got some sort of special machine that detects "wrong people" guns will always end up being wielded by them, checks cannot screen them all out. Any competent machine shop can build a damned gun and plans to do so aren't hard to find. The problem is so many people are freaked out by the news and screaming Chicken Little's that it's the "right people" who're going to end up being restricted. It's common sense that if someone is going to break the law that "yet another damned gun law" isn't going to even slow them down. Guns are so easy to get that the Boston bomber twits had a whole arsenal! Oh wait no they didn't...

    What will you aim to ban next? Knives? Screwdrivers? Sticks? Baseball bats? Fireworks? Tree stump remover? Model rocket engines? Lithium batteries? Fertilizer? Dry ice? Perfect safety is NOT achievable no matter how many rights you decide to give up...

  • Re: That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @09:11AM (#43641179) Homepage Journal

    Reliability is another issue that will keep printed guns from being used by all but the most technophilliac gun nuts. In one of the tests there was a misfire when the firing pin failed to hit the cartridge's primer cap.

    Real gun lovers want reliable guns that fire when needed. All 3d printed guns will do is cause more gun bans to come up in Congress, greatly increasing the statistical odds of one of them passing. If you enjoy your right to bear arms you should adamantly speak out against this reckless self-endangerment that is just begging to be criminalized, dragging the second amendment with it.

    The real challenge to gun enthusiasts is steady supply of reliable ammunition. There are only so many primers and reusable casings out there, and good quality lead forging is pretty challenging. This is really the core of why 3d gun printing is so puzzling. there are already so many guns in the US that even if all manufacturers were forced out of existence (amazingly unlikely) and government-sponsored gun roundups were started (another layer of near-impossibility) there are still enough guns to arm tens of millions of "rebels" to support the inevitable uprising.

    Then again, they say we are due for a meteor to hit, too.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by redmid17 ( 1217076 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @09:28AM (#43641319)
    You'll notice they do not control for legal carry versus illegal carry among a number of other quite obvious and important factors. That study is pretty much worthless.
  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @09:32AM (#43641379) Homepage Journal

    Dude; have you not been following the last 30 years of elections? When was the last time *anyone* running for an office actually represented *you*?

    Campaigns now cost millions of dollars, even for local elections. The only people that can run are people with "connections" to money, meaning they are already friends of the elite, and therefore, represent the elite. They are not interested in, nor do they represent the common people.

    And never mind big, federal elections, We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars needed. The bar has been raised so high that no common man can ever run for a Congressional Office.

    So really, what's your "vote" doing for you? You can vote for representative (D), who represents the elite, or representative (R), who represents the elite. Neither choice is for you. So your vote has already been taken away -- they just didn't take it away in a form you recognize!!

    I'm sorry to say that the real world isn't like the movies. It doesn't take a stormtrooper in a black uniform to take away your rights, it can be done in a much more subtle way, in a way you'll end up going along with, and NOT rebelling against.

    And in fact, you'll end up working *for* the oppression of other people's rights. And all the time, your guns will sit idle, because you trust your government while they continue to screw you.

  • Re: That's nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @10:01AM (#43641719)

    Plastic printed guns are a public health issue. In the actual test-firing using a rifle cartridge caused the handgun to explode. Why should I have my health insurance premiums jacked up to offset the insurance companies looses due to paying out on some moron that blew his hand off?

    The same reason you are paying higher premiums because of obesity and smokers. You all voted for the democrats, you all wanted this "were all in it together" mentality. Now you get to pay for it.

    I have no idea how you voted, but if you don't like paying for others {stupidity|laziness|ignorance} whatever... Start voting outside the 2 party paradigm and stop with the "that's throwing your vote away". Because that is only true when you buy into that mentality and keep it alive.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @11:29AM (#43642833) Homepage

    You are so so far off it's not even funny.

    The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.

    Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.

    The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.

    "a well regulated militia",

    Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.

    "They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia"
    And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.

    "The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."

    And this statement is based on zero proof of evidence.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kfmsd AT harrelsonfamily DOT org> on Monday May 06, 2013 @11:45AM (#43643091) Homepage

    People who want to ban or control guns, by definition, do not use logic. I got the statstics from the Australian web site myself. Even adjusting for population growth, violent crime went up by about 40% in the 10 years after their great gun grab. Murders did go down a little, but for every single life saved, over 600 additional people were either assaulted or sexually assaulted. That is what gun control actually does, yet nobody who WANTS gun control actually bothers to study the numbers. Links to the spreadsheet with numbers and links to the sources are HERE [].

    I also love the concern over "gun violence" -- as if having somebody stabbed to death is no big deal. Shouldn't people worry about violence in genera instead if focusing on one particular tool? A person stabbed to death is just as dead as a person shot to death.

    We also tried "assault weapon" bans (what an arbitrary list) and bans on larger magazines. Effect on crime? Approximately zero. Clearly, that worked so well, we have to bring it back again.

    My absolute favorite is that there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US (give or take). 2011 reported 11,101 gun homicides. That means that the gun grabbers want to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to try to stop the 0.0037% of guns that cause the problem.

    To put it another way, approximately 45% of households own guns. Assuming a uniform distribution of family sizes across gun-owning and defenseless households, that means that 140,200,000 people are in a household with guns (US population in 2011 is 311,591,917). The government wants to infringe on the rights of over 300 million people to stop 11,101 criminals (assuming one criminal per murder). That means that they are passing laws in order to try to stop the 0.008% of gun owners that do bad things. To put it another way, for every single criminal that these laws try to stop, there are 12,630 honest gun owners who will be collateral damage as a result of these laws.

  • by kwiqsilver ( 585008 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @01:55PM (#43644823)

    How the hell did this pile of garbage get modded as "informative"? Let's examine the bullshit, shall we?

    The guys who wrote the Second Amendment were very clear in their other writings that it was about letting communities (not states, and certainly not the feds) organize their own militias. In 1789, there were no national guard units. Regardless of the introductory phrase, the second part is pretty clear that no government, at any level, can restrict the rights of the people to own or carry firearms. No taxes, no bans, no magazine restrictions, nothing. Additionally, since the main body of the Constitution explicitly defines the finite powers that the states and people grant to the federal government, and none of those powers mention the ability to restrict firearms ownership, there is no such power to begin with.

    The NRA is not a sportsmen's association. A handful of Union Civil War veterans founded the NRA, because they realized that the Union soldiers were horrible shots compared to their Confederate counterparts. They founded the NRA to improve the general firearms skills of the population, in preparation for defensive readiness.

    I've purchased three firearms so far this year. They were all about the same price as a year ago. Ammo is definitely up though. Part of this is civilians buying up civilian production, but a bigger piece is the government buying up hundreds of millions of rounds. Additionally, commodity prices are up. Ammunition is mostly processed metals, so when the metal gets expensive, so does the ammo. Also, given the depression that is now finally kicking in (notice the world-wide drop in commodities last month, and the increasing number of bank panics) will probably not be over in 2016, because government idiots will try to legislate it away, which will only worsen it, I doubt a democrat will get elected in 2016. That would be almost as bad as electing a Republican.

    Now I'm sure you have a source for your claim that over 50% of these firearms will end up stolen (perhaps your ass?), but the number of stolen firearms in the US is actually pretty low. As is our crime rate, including our gun crime rate. Yes other countries have an even lower rate, but if you take out the drug smuggling related crimes, our murder rate is pretty low.

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun