Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Your Rights Online Build

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Which law? (Score:4, Informative)

    by WillgasM ( 1646719 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:11AM (#43675061) Homepage
    Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent? AFAIK, exchanging blueprints isn't illegal.
    So long as you're not a felon or selling guns you've printed, no laws have been broken.
  • Re:Which law? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Feyshtey ( 1523799 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:16AM (#43675131)
    Not even printing and assemblng the weapon breaks gun control law. You need no license or certification to produce a firearm, unless that weapon is a class3 (fully auto, cannons, sawed off shotguns, mortars, etc.), or you intend to sell it.
  • Summary is wrong (Score:4, Informative)

    by SirGarlon ( 845873 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:34AM (#43675329)

    The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it ... entirely circumvent[s] gun control laws.

    I'm sorry, that is just false. In my state, Massachusetts, for example, you need a license to *possess* any firearm.

    All 3D-printable weapons really circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show. Well, that and whatever state laws may require a license to buy a gun but not to own or carry it. (Those may or may not exist; if they do then they seem pretty stupid.)

    It would be smart to at least check what the laws in your state actually are, before you print one of these puppies out.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)

    by xenobyte ( 446878 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @11:47AM (#43675509)

    There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

    Certainly not all of us. I'm very much for gun ownership for one reason: As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted), and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already), people need to be armed in order to meet the challenge on an equal footing.

  • by WillAdams ( 45638 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:26PM (#43676091) Homepage

    Gun ownership among everyone in the U.K. is low. It was so low in WWII that ``The American Committee for defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns (and binoculars) from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes'': []

    I'm given to understand that my grandfather sent over a Remington No. 4 which an uncle of mine had cut down to a pistol....

    This article indicates a dramatic uptick in gun crime (89%) in the U.K. though: []

    FWIW, I can't think of a single police force in the U.S. where regular police officers on patrol carry submachine guns.

    Another article: []

    An interesting statistic is that a home is burglarized when occupied ~13% of the time in the U.S., while that number is 47% in the U.K. --- my father worked as a prison guard, and a recurring theme among people serving time for robbery was the importance of ``casing the joint'' because one didn't want to risk confronting an armed home-owner.

    and here's an article which argues about statistical reporting: []

    and here're some hard numbers: []

    A government strong enough to protect you from everything, is strong enough to take everything from you.


  • Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @12:53PM (#43676441) Homepage Journal

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

    For now. 3D printers themselves were thousands of Dollars a few years ago.

    Doesn't matter - people have been able to build a zip gun, at least equivalent in capability and reliability as the 3D printed gun (moreso in many cases), for less than $50 in parts since at least the 1960's.

    US Army manual TM 31-210, which can be had for free with no more effort than a Google search, has instructions on several different versions.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)

    by SolitaryMan ( 538416 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:10PM (#43676679) Homepage Journal

    Number of intentional homicides per 100k people:

    US: 4.8

    UK: 1.2

    source []

  • Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)

    by Faluzeer ( 583626 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:14PM (#43676733)


    Yes, it is accurate to state we have more recorded Violent Crime than you have in the USA. However I cannot help but notice, that you fail to qualify your statement by noting that the 2 countries use different methods to record/classify Violent Crimes. The following quote from the wikipedia article sums up the issue : "The comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is usually problematic, due to the way different countries classify crime. (1)"

    I will leave it you to do the research into the differences in how our 2 countries record & classify violent crimes. I have provided links to both the FBI (2) and the ONS (3) report on Crime in England and Wales as starting points for your research...

    Link :
    1. []
    2. []
    3. [] (page 16)

  • by Bill_the_Engineer ( 772575 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:17PM (#43676789)

    Since you brought up Automobile deaths vs Firearms death, lets really look at the data.

    Number of households in the US: 114,761,359 (2007-2011)
    Number of households in the US with at least one automobile: (90.9% 2010): 104,318,076
    Number of households in the US with at least one firearm: (47% Gallup 2011): 53,937,839

    Number of deaths involving an automobile in the US: (2010) 35,332 (no breakdown of accidental, homicide, or suicide given)
    Number of deaths involving a firearm in the US: (2010) 31,672 including 11,078 homicides, 606 accidental discharge, 19,392 suicides, 252 undeterminable intent, 344 other.

    Using the above (all from US census with the exception of the gallop poll as indicated which agrees with NRA estimates), lets normalize the mortality rate based on availability within a household:
    Number of deaths per 100,000 households with automobiles involving an automobile in US: 33.9
    Number of deaths per 100,000 households with firearms involving a firearm in US: 58.7

    As you can see the mortality rate from firearms is 24.8 greater than automobiles. The correct method of interpreting these calculations are as follows:
    34 out of 100,000 households with an automobile experienced or caused a death with an automobile in 2010.
    59 out of 100,000 households with a firearm experienced or caused a death with a firearm in 2010.
    (Note: "experienced or caused a death" signifies that the death originated from the item within the household. The death itself can be within a household that doesn't possess the item.)

    This exercise highlights the fact that while there were 3,660 more deaths involving automobiles than firearms in 2010, only 47% of the households had access to a firearm versus 90.9% of the households having access to a motor vehicle.

    Despite your assertion that "No one is screaming to Congress to ban automobiles", there are quite a large number of governmental regulations related to motor vehicles. Comparing automobile deaths with firearm related deaths actually hurts your argument since it demonstrates that the regulation of manufacture (safety, fuel efficiency, pollution controls), ownership (registration and taxation) and operation (licensing and traffic enforcement) keeps the mortality rate of automobile ownership quite low despite being in almost 91% of households.

    Of course this ignores the fact automobiles are designed to transport people and firearms are designed to kill.

  • Cheaper than normal (Score:4, Informative)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:36PM (#43677011)

    You need to compare it to the cost of acquiring a firearm if you knew you would fail a background check.

    Under $100 for a simple gun. Illegal guns are cheaper because many are stolen, so there's zero cost to the supplier. They also don't have to abide with costly regulations so there's no overhead.

    No criminal today purchases a gun by legal means to commit crimes with. Far cheaper and easier to get one illegally.

  • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)

    by LF11 ( 18760 ) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:56PM (#43677301) Homepage

    Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough.

    In my opinion, the principle value of this is in the hystrionics it induces in the hearts of people who don't understand civil liberties.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.