Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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This discussion has been archived.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 roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:26AM (#43639985) Homepage Journal

    This guy doesn't do this right, if he wants to make better guns of higher quality he shouldn't be printing PARTS for guns, he should be doing something else, printing molds and figuring out ways to use thermal molding and composite materials, like carbon fibers and plastics to make really durable quality parts.

  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:30AM (#43639989)

    The law says that its not illegal to produce a gun at home. People have been making guns at home for years.
    Why is it suddenly a problem that someone can 3D print a gun instead of making one out of a block of metal with machine tools?

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

    by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:10AM (#43640141)

    The three real points to gun control are

    It is a state right not a federal one. Just like drivers licenses , you can't really regulate it at the federal level. Therefore federal laws are mostly worthless.

    and Like pirates with DRM most gun laws only hurt and hinder those who lawfully own the guns. Like the shooting in Newton. The guns were legally locked up and stored. The insane son killed his own mother and then stole her guns. Now gun law would have stopped that.

    Lastly they want to ban guns that look like military weapons but don't actually shoot like military weapons. If you made a paintball marker look like an M-16 it would run against the gun laws that just failed. Being that it would have been full auto it could still be illegal under some of the laws in existence.

  • by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @07:39AM (#43640509)

    Think about it. Our greatest right is the right to vote. If you can't trust people with a gun how in hell can you trust them to vote? This might explain everything.

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

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @08:29AM (#43640807)

    Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita . . .

    Do you see the difference?

    Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.

    Murder by Numbers [americanthinker.com]

    Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.

    80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects [mlive.com]
    Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder [youtube.com]

    *Or was it their souls go straight to hell? I forget.

  • by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:48PM (#43643929) Journal

    The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's.

    I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.

    The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.

    As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?