Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds 336
coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."
Oh No! Assault Rifle!! (Score:4, Insightful)
What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!
Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!
Re: (Score:2)
Please take your common sense elsewhere, this thread here is for fear mongering.
Not thinking big enough (Score:2)
String must be banned also!
Then later on Twine when you "hackers" figure out it can also apply force from a distance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Colorado, where we will pay exactly as much attention to interstate trade in gun printing as we do pot growing.
In other news... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Why would they need 3D printed guns, when the US government is already supplying them with mass manufactured ones? [reuters.com]
I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think so? It's already trivially easy to build a deadly weapon. Gun control exists to stop an arms race by discouraging people in general from thinking they need to carry guns (both criminals and law-abiding), not to make it impossible to get a gun. In some areas this works, as you end up with very little gun crime - e.g. urban UK - maybe in others (remote?) this doesn't apply, as law enforcement is so far away? I am not sure there's a hard and fast rule...
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Britain (where carrying pistols was hardly unheard of in the nineteenth century), but I don't know that I've ever heard this as an argument for gun control in the U.S. It seems an odd argument: It would definitely work to make carrying a weapon more difficult for the law-abiding, but the only way to make it less desirable would be if it indeed made it nearly impossible for criminals to get access to weapons.
And British gun control has led to knife crime and to forms of knife control [imgur.com] tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.
Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also ca
Re: (Score:2)
What you have pointed out is that a knife is terrible as a defensive weapon. A knife the the hands of a 240 lb rapist is a nasty offensive weapon, a knife in the hands of a 95 lb assault victim isn't much defense, because it is only good close in. Give the victim a handgun, however, and she has a stand-off weapon than can equalize the situation.
As you say, no one wants the situation to get more violent than necessary, so the rapist will very likely make a quick exit as soon as the gun is shown.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the victim can't legally obtain a gun, the rapist will not bother to illegally obtain a gun? Bad guys will have guns no matter what. Why, heck, they might 3D print them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well to be precise, there is a list of handguns you can buy, but in general, you are correct that in most of the populous counties of California a CCW permit is simply not available since it is at the discretion of the sheriff. In my county, Santa Clara, sheriff Laurie Smith used to grant them. The process was simple: you called her office, a deputy told you where to send a $5000 check to her campaign fund, and her office called you back to bring in your paperwork when the check cleared. After federal in
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon."
While this might be all good philosophically, one thing we *know* is that it doesn't work in the U.S.
While no cause-effect relationship has been firmly established, correlations are clear: the areas of the U.S. with the strictest control of firearms are consistently the areas with the highest gun crime (including murder). And this is not just over 1 or 2 years, but over the many decades that the government (not some hack on one side or the other) has been keeping statistics on it.
And that also holds for changes: in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up. In areas where the restrictions were relaxed, firearm crime went down. There have been a few minor exceptions here and there over the decades, but that is all they have been: rare exceptions.
But I should also throw in: this is not unique to the US. After the last "big" firearms ban in the UK (and this is according to UK government published statistics), firearm crime went WAY UP and stayed way up for something like 8 years, before it began to settle back down again. And that later downturn in crime cannot be responsibly attributed to the gun laws, because crime in most of the other "modern, western" nations was going down also... including in the U.S., where gun ownership went up over that period.
So don't misunderstand me: what you say may have some merit. But the hard numbers don't lie. Firearms restrictions in the US do not deter crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing gun control in Britain with gun control in the US is like comparing British and US comedy. If Honey Boo Boo is funny for the US, it must be good enough for the British.
(If you don't know who Honey Boo Boo is, count your blessings. I've seen one commercial, and it saddened me that I was an American).
Re: (Score:2)
if they become trivially easy to manufacture then 3D printing gets controlled tighter than guns ever were.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.
2 - Just because you can make one here out of steel legally doesn't mean you will be able to tomorrow. It also takes more skill and effort to do it the 'right' way.. Anyone can download a file, press "print" and yank a finished object out of a printer.
3 - If you can manage to print things that can take the wear and tear of being a weapon, it advances the technology for use in other fields too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that drug law enforcement has long since crossed the line into Orwellian. And it's leaking into other areas of law enforcement as well.
Re: (Score:2)
"Current law bans marijuana which is easily grown yourself, and while I pretty strongly disagree with said law I wouldn't go nearly so far as to decry it as Orwellian."
Why not? According to the historical record, Federal marijuana laws were first put in place as an attempt to control the "uppity" hispanic and black populations, who were, at the time, the vast majority of marijuana users. For that reason, making marijuana illegal gave authorities an easy excuse to harass and arrest blacks and hispanics. Thus the government-sponsored films "Reefer Madness" and "Assassin of Youth", which were two films intended to pound into peoples' heads that good worthy white folks should
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?
At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.
The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.
What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.
Re: (Score:3)
What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.
What will change that equation is tighter gun control laws. Most people don't have reason to do it now is because gun access is easy, even a felon can buy a gun at a gun-show or on the street even if he's not legally permitted to own it.
If gun control gets effective then gun printing will become a lot more popular, especially if it gets to the point where 3D printers are as ubiquitous as laser printers have been for the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so, because you can make a better gun more easily using a few tools and plumbing supplies. Suppose the design improves and you can print a gun that lasts for a hundred rounds. Why wouldn't you make one out of metal that's more reliable? Guns are really easy to make.
Explosives are easy to make as well. Easier than guns, in fact. You can find recipes all over the internet to create high explosives using household items. Hell, you can even find recipes in US government publications. By y
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The other is just the normal tweaking of the government, where if there isn't a rule in place people will push the issue until a rule is made.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't know exactly what stresses a round will generate. While you *do* know how much powder is in a round, the way the stresses manifest themselves are heavily dependent on the design details of the weapon and the nature of the material it's made from. Nor is it particularly useful test, because a material th
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
These guns will be cheap to make and not easily detectable by metal detectors. They are effectively one use disposable weapons.
So you and your gang want to do a drive-by or robbery. Just print up some guns, get some bullets, and while leaving the scene of the crime throw the guns out the window.
Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises. Plastic printable guns make this possible again. They also enable guns getting onto aircraft. Or in schools. Careless people will print them up for "self defense", and we will see even more children die by accidental gun violence.
I expect that these weapons will be attractive to alienated people who would have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally. Say loner teens who feel bullied, or bullies in school who want to be able to flash some heat for intimidation.
Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.
So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it fairly easy to build a deadly zip gun? And I assume today already a gang could buy a CNC machine for less than the cost of a decent 3D printer if they wanted to roll their own guns, as they would have been able to for years? (Do they? If not, why not?)
The thing about metal detection is interesting, though. I suppose this is certainly increasing accessibility to metal-free guns. But that's not game-changing - it just means more intrusive methods required to detect guns.
Re: (Score:2)
"What's *new* here?"
Page Hits driven by delicious Fear and craving for tasty Drama.
Nothing else.
Again? (Score:3)
Re:Again? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean I have permission now to spam the submissions with links to my blog? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because that will groom the public to want DRM implemented on these Printers of Evil.
Think of the children, the potential for terrorism, and the potential for terrorist children.
(Don't think of democratization of the means of production. That's subversive!)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we have to fight those terrorist children!
Or ... protect... protect the fight... fight the protection ...
Can you get back to me?
"I was completely confident to hand fire"... (Score:2)
said the newly nose-less man.
Re: (Score:2)
He was taking a risk that all firearms manufacturers take. First bench firing, building confidence that the design works and then observing how the firearm held up after a few rounds, eventually he felt comfortable shooting it himself. It's been that way in armaments since time began. I can imagine the inventor of the slingshot getting hit in the head or hitting bystanders by accident but eventually it was a workable weapon.
Have 3D Printer Will Travel (Score:2)
Your Truly,
- Johnny Bitcoin
Something useful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.
There are plenty of them out there. Trouble is, they don't get most peoples' votes...
Changes (Score:3)
Matthew said he improved upon his first design of the Grizzly by making the barrel 50 percent larger, increasing the size of the receiver (the main portion that holds the firing mechanism),
Good things to do.
and adding groves to the inside of the barrel.
Maybe not so good. Depending on the depth of the grooves they may allow gases past the bullet and decrease the muzzle velocity. If they are helical groves they may increase accuracy.
By the way, without helical grooves the weapon is a musket and not a rifle.
I wonder what the muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapon is.
Can-Do does it better... again! (Score:2)
I'm not surprised...
Any country that can make a solid-fuel nuclear [CanDo] reactor work -without- needing costly -reprocessed- fuel-rods (and, who's already got some of its nuclear experts focussing on Energy from Thorium, as I write)...
should -surely- be capable of producing folks who can 1-up the competition in making a 3D-printed rifle fire.
PS As we watched the post-firing shell-removal step, :-)
we couldn't help thinking of the pre-firing step required
to make a "flint-lock" rifle fire.
A nice first start (Score:2)
Well, like 3D printing it seems the designs are evolving. This is a fairly novel approach in his design. I do like how the cartridge brass had to be tapped out of the end after each shot. The twist lock of the barrel into the receiver also helps hold any damage caused by cracking at the end of the barrel. It also became easier for the brass to fall out after each round indicating that the bore was increasing or becoming imprinted with the brass signature. While some people may disagree on gun control g
learn how to prototype firearms next time (Score:3)
If this dude knew what he was doing WRT firearm prototyping, he would have "worked up a load" instead of starting out his "testing" with high-velocity varmint ammo.
Just like a handloader, prototyping any firearm (not just 3D printed ones) requires starting with light loads & working up until you start to see signs of excess pressure (deformed cases, sticky bolt, etc), then backing off.
Granted this thing is a rimfire so hand-reloading is not really a practical proposition, but part of the awesomeness of 22LR is that there are a zillion different kinds of ammo out there.
He should have started out with CB caps, then regular 22 shorts, then subsonic 22LR match ammo, then standard velocity, then HV varmint ammo (which is what he started with...), then blow the thing to bits with a max-pressure round like the CCI Velocitor.
Also sense the barrel is made of polymer, hard copper-jacketed bullets are probably a no-no. It would be a good idea to moly lube the thing & keep a chronograph on hand so you know when the effectiveness of the lube is starting to wear off & re-lube it. The better match bullets come pre-lubed so this is another good reason to test with them.
For all we know the thing may work just fine all day long with subsonic match ammo & proper lubrication.
Big kudos for making a 3D printed rifle that actually works, but use good methodology & it might continue to work instead of eventually blowing up every time you take it out...
I still think that in the rifle's present condition he should still blow it to bits with a Velocitor for good measure :-).
Be sure to get a group on paper with the next try...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, a gun is by itself a rather simple design. You need a barrel to hold the explosion, you need a way to get a bullet in (if everything else fails, stuff it in from the end where it will go out of again) and some way to strike the priming pan. These are by no means features that the average teen with at least a hint of metal working skills cannot pull off.
And if they are front loader, just take a few more along and come prepared. Kids have a lot of time at their hands.
In general, I see that demonstration
Re:How long before (Score:4, Interesting)
When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of gun control: in my country there's a ban on anything that looks like a real gun (and a ban on actual guns as well). So you can have things like Airsoft guns as long as they are made to look like toys, having bright colors etc. But now we'll have actual guns that look like toys...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean the UK?
Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree. By your logic, pretty much everyone from Heckler, Koch, Smith and Wesson should go to hell for making people kill each other.
Let's be sensible for a moment. If at any moment in the future such guns surface where they could even REMOTELY be linked to any kind of terrorism, you'll soon see how police starts peering around for people with "suspicious" cargo. Even WANTING a gun that cannot be detected is illegal and punishable, and unless you spent the last 2 months or so under a rock, you should know that it is trivial for certain three letter goons to find out who downloaded what blueprint for a 3D model.
Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:4, Insightful)
No, all these assholes are doing is pushing toward crazy laws such as "owning a 3D printer makes you a terrorist".
Remember we're talking about politicians and law makers, they don't care if a lathe can make a better gun, they will still outlaw 3D printers anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.
You are quite stupid and misinformed. Or, just unwilling to put in the effort to not be (as evidenced by your posting anonymously).
Aside from NFA items, there are NO regulations banning the creation of firearms at home for personal use. If have the tools, means and knowledge, I can build myself a gun.
It's particularly efficient to just create the serial stamped part (which currently, is the part that holds the fire control group involving the trigger and associated pins and in some cases the hammer, fi
Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Funny)
Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.
The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)
Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd just discovered a way to make a plague lethal in 80% cases
Ah, yes, another Slashdotter who flips out when anyone disagrees with him. Well, carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a f
Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:3, Informative)
This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.
Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Insightful)
If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.
Using...
Re: (Score:2)
"Using..."
I think I'm liking this Guinness person. Maybe we should name a beer after him. But what's a "beaumont"?
Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It required conditions that are pretty much unique in the history.
In other words, a valid counterexample to the claims you've been making. Any other such example will also have conditions that are pretty much "unique in the history" by whatever criteria you happen to be using.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living h
Re: (Score:2)
It is merely a manner of force multiplier. If guns were not helpfull, we wouldn't have soldiers carrying guns in the army, we would only have tanks, and planes when we attacked. If you watch Black Hawk down for example, eventually that plane, tank, whatever is going to go down in a bad spot. Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment. Same in Iraq, Afganistan, etc, it required a huge force of 100,000+ troops to take on the guns, without the proliferation of g
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force.
You seem to think it's self-evident that there actually would be millions of armed citizens to take up arms against the government....
A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary.
Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved. When
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary."
See... there's just this LITTLE flaw in your logic here...
Maybe lots (not a "majority"... read the recent polls) of people are not too dissatisfied with government right now (not the same as "satisfied" at all... again read the polls). BUT... IF there were military in the streets shoving those people around, you can bet your ass that would change in a heartbeat.
There are 100 people in this country for every military man, and there is a gun for each one of them. PLUS, you can also bet that most of the
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved.
It DOES mean training is involved. That's what "well-regulated" means. However, not being the historian that I am, you don't seem to understand what the Second Amendment actually says.
The Founders were terrified of the necessity to have a standing army ("well-regulated militia"), that being THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, as their recent experiences taught them very plainly (as well as history... they were no dummies).
What the Second Amendment says, in Modern English, is this: "Bec
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of a Freudian slip there. You're welcome, Halliburton.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it. To make the militia work the people needed guns (the guns used in the start of the revolution were personal weapons).
My personal opin
Re: (Score:2)
This shows a disdain for the will of people.
Is there a problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Guns and current combustion engine share the same principle. If you can print a gun that fires reliably, you are much closer to be able to print an engine. The design of a printed engine could be radically different compared to one that need to be assembled and maintained.
Just illustrating your point. But to add one of my own. Today, you can machine a gun using a lathe and a few other low tech tools, yet it seems that everybody is nevertheless finding real factory made gun: drug lord, petty thief, terror
How is this useless for self-defense? (Score:3)
With even just a single shot, it would be really useful as an emergency backup gun to have around the house somewhere, in the same way people sometimes keep uber-cheap crappy cell-phones in cars for emergency use only.
It doesn't replace a real gun but it's not in way useless as a tool for defense.
If you really want to dodge regulations there are lots cheaper and easier ways to do that with real guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Backup for what, exactly?
For your main gun, which is usually locked up in the house somewhere.
This gun is something you could easily keep in secondary locations, like a barn or a car. You wouldn't really care if it got stolen, unlike a real gun, because it would be nearly useless in committing a crime but could be the factor in stopping a crime or protecting yourself. It also would be nearly rust-proof unlike a real gun.
Even if you could afford a better gun for other areas sometimes a cheaper low-mainteni
Re: (Score:2)
Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal.
Even if the law where you are requires the guns be secured, that just means you would need a locked case in the barn (or keep in the locked trunk of a vehicle in the barn). It's still far more useful than having to go all the way back to the house for a gun.
So as I've said - it's only useful to break law.
And as I've demonstrated handily, you are totally wrong (you couldn't even say anything about my car example, which is perfectly legal as long as the gun is sto
Re: (Score:2)
You really are a pretty bad person.
Re: (Score:3)
TBH that's exactly how democracy works, except your opinion just has to be popular enough for whatever you "disagree with" to be outlawed. And instead of just hitting someone, we lock them away, which comes down to the same thing.
And no, libertarianism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for property law. And no, communism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for sharing anything you happen to cherish.
So, your alternatives are tyranny of the majority, or tyra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not saying enough to be clear about what you're referring to, but I can guess already that I might disagree with your definition of "non-aggression".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?
Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played,
Re: (Score:2)
So... one of the core tenets of libertarianism is "don't be an asshole", and people actually expect that this would work in the real world?
That's almost as naive as the Marxists....
Re: (Score:2)
From your incorrect correction, I think you don't understand what non-aggression is.
Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.
Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."
Re: (Score:2)
Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."
Or it may be that the original posters' disagreement is genuinely somewhat irrelevant. I note that this is just a disagreement about semantics of the term, "non-aggression". Since a meaning was given and not just the word, we can just use the meaning rather than the word, even if the word usually has some other connotation.
We don't get in a tizzy, if say someone uses the mathematical or physics versions of the word, "field" (for a particularly notorious example), rather than the normal English usage as a
Re: (Score:2)
So outlawing an unpopular activity (which isn't itself aggression) is initiating aggression by the above definition and hence, counter to libertarian tenets, contrary to the original assertion.
If I agreed with everything you said, it's unrelated to the initial point. When someone's right to travel conflicts with someone else's right to property (someone buys land surrounded by his neighbor with no explicit right-of-way), the traveler must initiate aggression to leave his property. That means the libertarians would be "forcing" him to initiate aggression by the arbitrary asignment of property ownership above the right to travel. If the right to travel was higher, then the circling property owne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.
I am not sure I agree. One that can only shoot a few times, I agree. But this is the early stage. Since not all shot projectiles are for killing, I used a .22 cal cartridge to attach my deck to the block walls, and concrete slabs (uses a blank to shoot a nail.) Also other things, like balloonists have been using helium balloons for wind speed/direction, cheap
Re: (Score:2)
People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.
In other words, their hands aren't at all bloody. But then I measure "blood" by actual harm caused to people, not by whether or not I get a blowhard upset on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't really be 3D printed then would it? It would be a composite hand-formed with robotic assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
They are trying to nullify totalitarian weapons control measures by democratization of production.
These are baby steps, not the House of Krupp in a fucking box.
Re: (Score:2)
When you use "perverting" and "friendship or love of another another human being" and "nuts" in the same post it just brings this other application of 3D Printing [dezeen.com] to mind.
Now you can print your own toys at home! No need for plain brown wrapper packaging!
Re: (Score:2)
If the barrel can now withstand multiple bullets being fired, does that also mean that the material used to make the barrel is strong enough to become a bullet that would cause serious injury to a human? At that point, does the only requirement for metal become the firing pin and the jacket for the bullet (the part that holds the gunpownder explosion and which the firing pin strikes.)
Theres always caseless rounds, as used in the HK G11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition [wikipedia.org]
no need for metal cartridge case!