DEFCAD, the island of misfit objects

AR

Defense Distributed, the guys working on 3D printed guns and lower receivers for an AR-15, have a storied history with makers, corporations, and our elected representatives. When the news broke they were designing a 3D printed weapon, their $25,000 leased 3D printer was taken away from them. When their designs were too controversial for Thingiverse, they were taken down. Defense Distributed keeps on firing back, though, and now they’re hosting their own 3D model repo called DEFCAD.

In another one of Defense Distributed’s well-produced promo videos, they make their case for a repository of 3D models that doesn’t respond to takedown requests. Basically, 3D printing is a disruptive technology and is too important to be beholden to copyright lawyers, talking heads of the media, and, “the collusive members of the maker community”.

DEFCAD isn’t only about guns. They plan on hosting anything those in the upper echelons of power don’t like – or at least those with a copyright, patent, or trademark gripe – and never responding to a takedown request. It’s a great idea, somewhat akin to The Pirate Bay for physical objects, but actually popular.

Comments

  1. dALE says:

    Sometimes I think that these dummies are just left wing wackos that are trying to rustle as many jimmies as possible in order to push the anti gun agenda further.

    • dALE says:

      its a conspiracy, I’m telling you.

    • Fritoeata says:

      I have thought of that possibility…
      On a lighter note: they should just outlaw “bad guys” and call it a day!

      • dALE says:

        I’m not so in your face about things like these guys are, but I spent some time in the Navy and I have a nice gun collection. I wonder if this is the right way to push back or will it just spur more legislation.

        • Fritoeata says:

          Think about it: Unlimited funds, unlimited voter backing(“welfare”subs), they have bigger guns… It’s gonna be a long hard battle to keep the “2Amm”
          …Rand Paul +1

          • BossDad says:

            Make no mistake, the battle to keep the 2nd Ammendment is well worth the fight. Keep writing your local, State, and Federal political leaders and make your voice heard.

      • draeath says:

        They have. Last I checked [attempted] assault, murder, and manslaughter are all plenty illegal already. I’ve never really understood the point in piling on additional laws regarding the tools used for the base crime.

        Let the judge do his damn job. The crime is already a crime, suitable punishment should be decided by the judiciary branch, not the legislative.

    • Fritoeata says:

      Disruption is absolutely their point… It’s really for inciting the OMG! factor. How’s that for reason… I don’t really know how they can stop something like this, however.

      From the thread titled: “Attn gov agents and their media lackeys…”
      “I plan on building an AR when I have the money and my printer, and want to save as much through printing as posssible.” -Priest5

    • Yarr says:

      Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy by the LIE-beral media to disenfranchise you hard-working, gun-carrying, proud Americans! Derr gunna tek mah guns! ARE COUNTRY!!11!1one

      • dALE says:

        Thanks for posting! What a thoughtful comment. Perhaps next time you will bring something that has some relevance to the conversation.

        • 911ducktail says:

          It’s as relevant as you actually claiming liberal subterfuge…

          • davidcdean says:

            No, it wasn’t. It’s what we on the interwebs refer to as, “trolling” (specifically the flaming variety), and I’m disappointed to see it arrive here on HaD.

          • 911ducktail says:

            @davidcdean –

            right. the g-g-p wasn’t being a flaming troll by making the incendiary comment that one political party would take the time and energy necessary to create 3D CAD drawings of guns to release them to further the ‘liberal gun grabbing agenda’

    • Wayne says:

      The second amendment is the ONLY way we will keep our other rights. It must NOT be compromised… not ever. I’ll donate to them.

    • Alex says:

      Actually, this is more about the open source movement than about a gun agenda. Gun manufacturers are definitely not happy about anyone cutting into their market. Of course, these are the beginning stages, so the the products aren’t much yet. But, give it a year, then it won’t be anything to laugh about.

  2. Fritoeata says:

    I think it’s interesting that this idea gets so much coverage by the government. It’s obvious that they feel vulnerable by this.
    If I upload a Bic pen, would I get a cease and desist? I know those are fatal!

    • dALE says:

      Just as long as you don’t upload plans for the spitballs that go into the bic pen.

    • 0c says:

      BIC pens are not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people.

      • Yarr says:

        Let’s be fair, guns aren’t limited to the sole purpose of killing people, they can kill a whole lot of other things too!

        • dALE says:

          the Imperialist American government sure has lots of guns, would be a shame if the citizens had firearms… That would jeopardize the government’s control over us.

          • Rdent says:

            If an estimated 220 million guns already in the hands of American citizens can’t stop your imaginary “Imperialist American government” from controlling you, why do you think a few more 3-D printed guns will?

        • chango says:

          In Newspeak they’re called “Rube Goldberg hole punches”. Which is handy information for when The Man gets the authority to take all the guns and watch us sleep.

          • Ren says:

            Newspeak? Nah, Newspeak is better known as “Politically Correct/ Political Correctness and its variants.

        • cmholm says:

          Having enjoyed considerable hours doing those other fun things, I also know that argument is a red herring. The rationale behind the core of the big time gun gomers is the option for armed overthrow of the US federal government. Given the rhetoric of many of the people involved, I think we all know which side would be firing the first shot.

      • dbear says:

        No type of weapon you can find in civilian hands is “designed for (AND LIMITED TO) the sole purpose of killing people”. Not ARs, AKs , any semi automatic weapon or any other weapon for that matter. All are tools. All have good uses and bad.

        • Mark says:

          Guns have been designed to kill people, not by accident, but by purpose. The problem with any lethal weapon is not that it could be used in a right way, but the fatal consequences of accidents and abuse. Dead people are not a side effect of guns in civilian hands, they are a conscious design property.

          • Prowler50mil says:

            I have operated firearms for 25+ years. I have operated them correctly and with great skill. I have never killed a person with one. Your reasoning seems flawed.

          • Mark says:

            The USA has ca 30,000 gun deaths per year. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

          • Prowler50mil says:

            And the US has 32,000 car deaths per year. Seems cars, which are designed for safety, are killing just as many people as firearms, which you say are designed to kill people.
            So again, it seems your reasoning is flawed.

          • ut says:

            On what planet are you gun nuts living on? A car was designed for, and its intended purpose is for transportation. Improper use has a chance of injury or death.

            The gun used properly and for its intended purpose results for intentional death or inury (so does imporper use and accidnets).

            Do you insane people really think guns were really designed for an alternative way of saying ‘hello’, or other such nonsense?

            As for claiming that that shooting clay targets and such makes it ‘okay’, in this case you’re using surragate targets to hone the skill to properly use a gun eventually on real people for its intended purpose of, yes, death or injury. You may note that clay targets or whatever else you’re shooting at don’t tend to remain intact afterwards, which should be hint to your thick skulls as what guns are designed for.

            You gun nuts sicken and disgust me.

          • RunningDroid says:

            @ut
            The reason for having a gun is not necessarily to kill others, but to ensure that you are not killed/turned in to property of some country’s government/corporations, for sport or hunting.

            The reason for shooting clay targets & etc. is so that you can increase your skill, and just because someone gets/aspires to get the Olympic gold medal in shooting sports does not mean they intend to use that skill to kill people.

            “You gun nuts sicken and disgust me.”
            I think people who think guns can only be used kill people need to see a therapist.

        • Sym says:

          Mark: The USA has 30,000 gun deaths per year? Which means what, exactly? There are enough legitimate reasons to discharge a firearm that lumping all gun deaths into a single number is as stupid as lumping cancer surgery, whittling, and the cooking channel under “knife cuts per year.”

          I’m curious if you are at all outraged by Planned Parenthood 2012 metrics. Recently, they proudly announced responsibility for the deaths of more than 300,000 babies– death on a scale ten time greater than what you’re worried about. Interestingly, their tools certainly fit your description: “…designed to kill, not by accident, but on purpose.”

          • ut says:

            So many problems and fallacies with your post I don’t even know where to begin.

            Additionally, fetuses and embryos are not babies, and are not live in the first place. Once more, many of those pregnancies that were terminated would have caused serious health problems for the woman, many times including not making it through the birth. On top of that, that majority of those fetuses and embryos wouldn’t have been viable as well.

            Go take your right-wing regressive nutery elsewhere.

        • HackTheGibson says:

          Guns aren’t designed just for killing people. As someone who has run a sporting clays business for the last few decades I disagree. We shoot over a million clay pigeons a year and not one person gets killed.

          • 911ducktail says:

            Shooting clay is an ancillary benefit of a tool whose single main design is to kill more things better

          • Bitter Tait says:

            Mr Ducktail: look into the history of rocketry, putting people in space is an ancilliary benifit of a tool who’s single main design is to kill more things better.

          • nate says:

            It’s not practicing killing “things” but birds. how is that a bad thing? It puts food on tables and gives money to the conservation of wildelife.

          • 911ducktail says:

            @Bitter Tait

            actually, I’m pretty sure you have that backwards. putting men on the moon was a convenient explanation as to why we were developing rockets whose main function was to carry nuclear-based ICBM warheads.

      • chiefcrash says:

        Olympic competition pistols are not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people.

        A shotgun loaded with beanbag rounds are not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people.

        A .22 bolt action rifle is not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people.

        A Colt 1911, modified to be a “race” gun and loaded with wadcutters (rounds specifically designed to leave nice round holes in paper for easy scoring) is not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people.

        A nail gun (which, depending on model, is classified as a firearm) is not designed for (and limited to) the sole purpose of killing people….

        It appears your argument is overly general to the point of being worthless…

      • draeath says:

        Neither is a firearm.

    • David says:

      Remember when they used to fire a BIC pen into a poor defenseless 2×4? Then, holding the board, they would write on a piece of paper?

      Picture all the trees they had to kill to make those TV commercials. It’s horrible! All those poor trees ever wanted to do was grow up and remove the excess Carbon Dioxide from the air and give humans pure Oxygen to breathe in return. Then when they were old, allow themselves to be turned into baseball or cricket bats so that human children could play and have fun.

  3. 8complex says:

    Hey, you know, if you made these out of steel, they’d be even stronger!

  4. Andy says:

    Does no one see that this kind of use for home 3D printing is really giving off negative view of something that should be in every home? It makes me sad to see the video’s that these guys put out because it’s just destroying all the great work people all over the world have been putting into improving and promoting 3d home printing.

  5. Isotope says:

    This really isn’t new at all. I suppose setting up a 3d printer is a little easier than setting up a CNC mill, but files for milling AR-15 lowers have been around for a looooong time. I’ll bet there are backyard machinists milling their own guns as we speak.

    I mean, you do realize this is an entire industry, right? Maybe this is just the first exposure to home gunsmithing for many people so it sounds scary. (I know, gunsmithing is not the proper term since this implies doing it for compensation which is in fact illegal. In the US as long as you don’t sell it, you can legally make your own gun!)

    • Isotope says:

      In fact, you can buy 80% finished aluminum lowers which aren’t considered a gun yet, so there’s no background check, no permit needed, etc. Take it home, drill a few holes, screw in the rest of the components you bought on the internet and voila, you have yourself an AR-15. Seems much easier and certainly more reliable than fiddling around with a 3d printed plastic lower.

    • steveg says:

      You are correct sir, and home gunsmithing / hobby gunsmithing seems to be the preferred term in the community. There’s nothing illegal about it, and the people who do this kind of thing, myself included are very careful not to break any laws and are constantly corresponding with the atf whenever a project is in a grey area. I personally feel that 3d printing guns is stupid; because a) the materials involved aren’t nearly strong enough, and b) it alows people with little to no skills to slap one together in a weekend and think they’ve got the real thing. A .223 is a powerful round and the part in question is usually made from forged 7075 aluminum. I have one ready to be machined on my bench right now and it cost about $30 so why use plastic?

      • matt says:

        When did .223 become a “powerful round”? Is 7.62 NATO a magnum round now?

        Aluminum wasnt chosen due to its strength, it was chosen because injection molded plastics sucked back in the 1950s. Now adays there are plenty of injection molded plastic AR15 lowers.

        Why use plastic? Its lighter weight, and cheaper to manufacture. The same reason you’re not using a steel lower. Also stop BSing people, 80% lowers cost more than $30, especially with the present panic?

        • Isotope says:

          @matt, I think @steveg might be talking about an example of a 3d printed ABS lower that was successfully tested on a .22LR conversion but failed when the builder tried a .223 setup. I’m too lazy to find the link now, but it was a good read. The guy made a good faith attempt to print a working lower and documented his successes and failures.

          • matt says:

            I’m pretty sure i’ve seen that video, but it wasnt .223 Rem. It was 5.7mm FNH and failed after 6 rounds. Their most recent receiver with a reenforced buffer tube attachment point survived over 600 rounds of .223 Rem without failure. The forces the lower receiver has to endure are rather minimal, and plastics are fine for most uses. Aluminum isnt necessary unless you’re trying to butt stroke someone with your rifle.

  6. Doktor Jeep says:

    For the last time, you cannot create an entire firearm with a 3D printer! You still need to use a steel barrel, bolt assembly, and other related parts.
    Meanwhile, I see there is a “we want freedom but will only snark on the internet for it” crowd, and then there are the gun owners. Hey, do you think the camps will be segregated by what liberties you cared about and what you didn’t? You better hope so.

    The implications of 3D printing alone means the end of the production oligarchy. The ability to outsource to China as a means of de-industrialization of the West is slipping away. We are supposed to go to Walmart and buy little plastic crap made in China with our credit cards, not actually (gasp horrors!) make them ourselves, the way people used to, long ago.

    But I guess people see a gun, get vaginosis, and change their stripes. Oh how you will bitch and moan when say your printed iPhone sleeve gets taken down but oh noo somebody is making a gun part! Quick, to the pass more laws mobile!

    I can just as much say that you snarkers with your file sharing “caused” new laws. You like that ACTA? You like CISPA? Where did they get their funding? You just gotta go and be a TV zombie watching movies on your little phones everywhere you go… so.. you like how the IPs want to gauge and control your bandwidth?

    The inroads to the freedom of 3D printing will be made here, on this issue. Like it or not.

    • Fritoeata says:

      Let’s just tell everybody that we can!!!
      … and then we can bring about CHAOS!!
      (please don’t take me seriously!)

    • jay says:

      I’m not into guns at all, but I can’t help but agree that for 3d printing to actually become the revolutionary technology that it could one day be it will have to be firmly established that people can make whatever they want, including guns. There would be a much smaller need to fight over stuff with guns if stuff was more easily available.

      • Jimmy the Geek says:

        This is actually a great point and I had never considered this before. Yes, we must establish the right to 3D print anything we want without restriction from the government. It is only against the law if we use what we print to break the law.

        • draeath says:

          … or print things that are illegal already (and not just because you printed it)

          ie, if it’s illegal for you to have a gun, it’s already illegal for you to have it! The fact that you printed it has nothing to do with it and shouldn’t be treated any differently than obtaining it via any other means.

          • Luiz Felipe says:

            Like would be illegal to print your drugs. But they will never get you, because you will print only what you need.

    • Jimmy the Geek says:

      To be fair, you only need to have a lot of people with little guns that can only fire once at contact range, and then your organization will have all the guns it needs from the former guards with guns. The allies dropped a lot of single round stamped metal guns into France prior to D Day and the resistance armed themselves using those guns.

      • Ursus Siara says:

        Regarding cheap guns as a means to accomplish anything:
        Not Quite. Great read on the subject here:

        http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-liberator-pistol/

        Like anything else one endeavors to craft, one should always strive for the highest quality one can afford. I would think that improvements in materials will make home made weapons, whether used for self defense, sustenance, sport or all 3, all the more effective.
        All weapons are tools. And all tools can be weapons.
        I’m pretty sure that a study of natural history by some of our more “collective” members would show them that the first tools developed are nearly always created to improve the chance of eating, weapons.
        Being that they (guns) can be used for those three purposes (in addition to straight up murder) simply make them versatile ones.
        Ursus

      • Ren says:

        They also “dropped” them in the Philippines during WWII, the trigger had a sharp edge that often cut the finger of the user.

  7. skelt00r says:

    People have been making plastic AR lowers for a while now… also home made guns usually end up consting more. You can’t really compete with volume of the factory.

  8. ut says:

    This obsession with guns is really pathetic, sad, and wrong. Are there really so many people (and I use that term loosely in this case) so emasculated that they can only define themselves by having guns, and their ability to kill and destroy? So sad these regressive people that are unable to be positively creative, constructiviely create and progress society instead turn to destroy others who can and do.

    These people need to be locked up.

    • Jeff Ballard says:

      I define my self by who I am and how I act, not by how many guns I have, just like you.

      • ut says:

        No one should have devices whose express purpose is to kill, maim, and or injur. The desire to manufacture them yourself is even more sickening.

        • smee says:

          So you have no knives in your kitchen?

          What if I was to say that harm can be done via electricity and therefore no one should have access to that either? Really what is your point? It is a dangerous world out there and the key to it all is the phrase “Personal Responsibility”.

          • ut says:

            A kitchen knife’s purpose is not to kill or injure you may note. It is for the preperation of food. Knives and other sharp objects have vastly more design goals and purposes other than killing, maiming, and to injur.

            Electricy wasn’t ‘designed’ or ‘created’, for lack of better terms, to kill either.

            Only sick and twisted people pervert them to do so.

            Guns on the hand, are expressly for causing death or injury.

            Your clinging like a limpet to the phrase “Personal Responsibility” doesn’t enter into it, and belies your connection to gun nuts, regressives, and other degrangements.

          • spiruviridae says:

            A kitchen knife was designed to penetrate and slice tough substances like skin, muscle, cartilage, and their vegetable counterparts (In the latter case it is most definitely used to kill something live).

            Guns are designed to repeatably throw a projectile in the direction they are aimed.

            Shovels are designed to penetrate dirt, their handle and blade-curvature are designed to allow for easy leveraging and removal of the dirt from the newly formed hole in the ground.

            An easier way to say these is “knives are designed for cutting”, “guns are designed for shooting”, and “shovels are designed for digging”. All of the tools listed can be used for killing, but that is dependent on the wielder of the tool.

            Don’t want to kill a man with a knife? Don’t repeatedly stab him.
            Don’t want to kill a man with a gun? Don’t aim at him, especially not his vital areas.
            Don’t want to kill a man with a shovel? Don’t hit his vital areas.

        • Blarhg says:

          I guess you have never seen or heard of a mossin being used as a tent pole, or a PPSH being used as a chair. Things designed to kill, can be used to kill, things not designed to kill can kill, your point is moot. The simplest way to avoid unwanted and unintended injury and or death with anything and everything is education, to learn what you have/are using/surrounded by and understand the risks/rewards/uses of it, as burdening as it is to think that you own safety is best left up to you. While I sincerely doubt that this will alter your opinion on the matter, as I have the sneaking suspicion that you are trolling so 4/10 because I responded.

          • ut says:

            And yet you’re reducing to reductum ad absurdum, a complete fallacy on your post. Nothing you’ve said invalidates what I’ve posted, it just shows the mental contortions gun nuts go through to justifiy in their heads death and destruction.

          • chiefcrash says:

            You DO realize that “reductum ad absurdum” is not a logically fallacy, but rather a legitimate argument, right?

            “You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means…”

        • Jimmy the Geek says:

          The purpose of a gun is to hunt or target shoot. It is only with great regret that anyone ever uses one for any other purpose, such as to defend yourself as a last resort. Except for crazy people.

          • spiruviridae says:

            Crazy people will kill if they feel like it. They don’t use guns, they use opportunity.

    • dALE says:

      you should look at the world outside the U.S. and realize that your town could be burning next. I won’t expect the police to show up when i need them.

    • chiefcrash says:

      @UT: You seem to have your own obsession with guns, albeit a negative obsession…

      Seeing as you think *no one* should have devices whose express purpose is to kill, maim, and or injure, I am assuming you want the immediate disarmament of civilian law enforcement and military forces, correct?

      People don’t own firearms because they’re emasculated or “compensating for something”. They own them for the same reason they own fire extinguishers: it’s a tool to combat bad things while waiting for the appropriate department’s assistance. Or do you think the massive upswing in women buying guns is due to them feeling emasculated?

      One more simple question: do you believe that, as a living creature, I have a right to protect and defend my life from those who would do me harm?

      • jon h says:

        “They own them for the same reason they own fire extinguishers: it’s a tool to combat bad things while waiting for the appropriate department’s assistance. Or do you think the massive upswing in women buying guns is due to them feeling emasculated?”

        People don’t hoard fire extinguishers. People don’t go out and seek “military style” fire extinguishers.

        The main reason people buy guns is irrational fear, largely stoked by the gun industry itself.

        The people freaking out and buying up all the guns and ammunition are some of the sorriest, scared-shitless people you could imagine. And they’re suckers, because they’ve fallen for the gun industry’s scary stories.

        These people don’t need 3D-printable AR-15 lowers, they need prozac or xanax and a good therapist.

        • chiefcrash says:

          There also isn’t a concerted effort to ban fire extinguishers. If there was, I’m sure you’d see hoarding. For crying out loud, people are hoarding incandescent LIGHT BULBS, all because of a *perceived* ban…

          You brought up “military style”. Can you tell me what difference something cosmetically styled to be military has to do with anything? If 2 objects do the same thing the exact same way, what does it matter what it looks like?

          I own a gun because I want to defend myself from a violent crime. The statistics show I have an 80% chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Is preparing for something with an 80% chance really “irrational”?

          • jon h says:

            “The statistics show I have an 80% chance of being the victim of a violent crime.”

            No, you *don’t* have an 80% chance of being the victim of a violent crime, at least not in the US, and not unless you associate with criminals or work in a field that makes you a target. The only statistic I’ve seen that’s gives an estimate in the 80% range is from *1987*, was the claimed chance of being the victim of a violent crime at any point after age 12, and no doubt was skewed by crack dealers and whatnot.

            The violent crime rate has been falling for decades, and most people aren’t crack dealers. The rate of shooting deaths in some neighborhoods in Chicago is very high. That doesn’t mean Oprah Winfrey, or people who live in the expensive North side houses near Wrigley Field, or people who live in downstate Illinois farm towns have as much chance of being shot.

            If people are still spreading this number in 2013, they’re trying to scare you stupid so you make poor decisions. Their next boat payment depends on scaring people.

    • rallen says:

      I think we can all pretty much agree that @UT is either fearfully obsessive and immune to logic on this issue, or a troll and no longer deserving of response.

  9. Joe Bonasses says:

    Someone needs to figure out how to 3d print bullets before the shadow bankers destroy the world……ironic that the government won’t properly regulate the banks, but instead waste their time even considering something as trivial as guns……

  10. Tony says:

    “No one should have devices whose express purpose is to kill, maim, and or injur. The desire to manufacture them yourself is even more sickening.”

    Right, because all people are just naturally good-natured, and no one would ever threaten or harm you or your family. Golly, the thought is just sickening, idn’t it?!

    History shows us just what the difference between civilization and chaos is, and it often changes in a day. I have guns, and I’ll pass them on to my children, and their children. Do I think I’ll ever need to use one for defense? Probably not….but I’ll be prepared should the need arise, and so will my family.

    What’s in like in your world?

    • ut says:

      And yet by having them, you continue to perpetuate the ‘need’ for them. Instead of attempting to progress society to where, yes, people are more good-natured and live together as a functioning community, you continue to keep regression.

      • nanoc says:

        I have read most of you post and I would have to say most of them are fallacy’s as you like to say. Your grouping guns together incorrectly and attempting to conclude that the sole purpose for all guns is to kill. If we look at guns by model for example, for every firearm that was really designed to kill I can easily name 2 or more firearms who’s sole purpose from design to manufacture was putting holes in paper. Just because the army orders millions of M-16’s doesn’t mean you can take that 1 rifle model and say all other rifles are designed to do the same.

        • ut says:

          There you go with reductum ad absurdum again, as well now with moving the goal posts and attempting to reframe and misdefine.

          • nanoc says:

            lol, you do understand that your argument is reductio ad absurdum not mine. You take all guns as a whole and then without breaking anything apart simplistically label them all as solely design to kill, which is false. Maybe use Google before mentioning reductio ad absurdum again.

          • stunmonkey says:

            shhhh. don’t bother him when he’s on a roll, nanoc. he’s busy trying to sound intellectual. its actually kind of cute. pointing out the fact he doesn’t know what he’s talking about is rather redundant at this point.

          • chiefcrash says:

            You DO realize that “reductum ad absurdum” is not a logically fallacy, but rather a legitimate argument, right?

            “You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means…”

        • hugowesseling says:

          But if you make that distinction, why do people want to have semi automatic weapons for instance? Target practice can be done with a bow and arrow for just the same amount of fun.

          I posit that the only reason people deliberately want to have guns is because they’re afraid of other people that have guns.

          Now if you agree with me there, what should we strive for as a society? One where everyone has guns, or one where no one has them? I know the second is impossible to achieve, but I do feel safer in a neighborhood where the least amount of people have a gun.

          Now how to achieve this situation is another and very difficult problem.

          • chiefcrash says:

            @hugowesseling:

            As somebody who has done both, I can tell you that target practice with a bow and arrow is not nearly the same amount of fun as blasting tin cans in the desert with an AR-15…

            I disagree that the only reason people deliberately want to have guns is because they’re afraid of other people that have guns. That’s true for some. Others are afraid of people with knives. Others (such as women and the elderly) are afraid of people who are physically stronger than themselves. Others aren’t afraid of anything, and just enjoy recreational shootings. Others still want guns to put meat on the table…

            As for feeling safer in a neighborhood where the least amount of people have a gun: Washington DC damn-near banned all guns until recently. It also had one of the highest crime and murder rates in the country. Then there’s places like Vermont: very high gun ownership, and you don’t even need a permit to carry a gun. Are you honestly saying you’d feel safer on the streets of Washington DC rather than Vermont?

      • An armed society is a polite society. By maintaining an armed society, we insure that the bad guys have cause for pause, and the ones too stupid to take such pause get deleted. This tilting the balance of power back toward the good guys, the makers, the producers, the tax payers and away from the bad guys, the takers, the consumers, and the subsidy users is a net good in the world and in American society.

        • static says:

          Armed societies exist within the USA and other countries as well, they don’t prove your theory, the “less bad” (one really can’t call them good) element those societies loose. That or an escalation ensues as the less bad protects their interests. Until someone more powerful than both that being negatively impacted puts a stop to it.

          Love your call for labor to take action though. The world economy is built on labor. Labor produces and purchase goods. The takers are those extract a portion from each transaction, who when they amass enough wealth collectively they use that wealth to oppress others, while telling anyone too ignorant to believe them they are the producers, when the only thing they ever produce is grief for the actual producers. Call that communist liberal marxist socialist if you want but even Abraham Lincoln understood the world runs on those in the labor force.

          • Can you give a concrete example from objective reality of what you say, a modern society upon the earth with mass availability of weaponry and the “less bad” elements of that society losing to the “more bad” elements?

            Without venture capital, without the business owners and operators, there is nothing for labour to do, and they sit idle, or else they rise to the level of the Capitalist classes and become their own entrepreneurs.

        • jon h says:

          “An armed society is a polite society.”

          Yes, that’s why there are so many stupid shootings at rap concerts and nightclubs and whatnot when someone gets into an argument. That’s a “society” where the participants know damned well they might be talking shit to someone who’s armed.

          Sorry, but it doesn’t work out that way in practice.

  11. Jimmy the Geek says:

    So, what is the guys name that runs this organization so I will recognize it when they announce on TV that “So and So is hiding out in a South American embassy requesting asylum for political persecution.”

  12. static says:

    [shrug] Comments containing the same pat, bordering on inane statements, as can be expected by now. While the video was well produced, but the script could have use word with revolution being a push button term. When used by groups as this many see the meaning as a armed revolution revolution. I took it to mean a second industrial revolution, do they really want to attract the attention of those currently manufacturing consumer goods? In that they are mostly preaching to their choir not a problem, but if they want to to speak to the general public, they need better scripts introducing themselves. Personally if production of a complete center fire semi-auto assault style rifle in the goal wouldn’t a variant of the AK 47 make more sense? A weapon we know that can be produce in remote locations using simple tools & few skilled position in the manufacturing group. Even those skills are easily passed on to those who have some basic skill.

  13. stunmonkey says:

    What is it with the dude on here completely against the idea that individual’s have an inherent right to life and the preservation of it.

    Yes, I own a gun. yes, its purpose is to kill, and thats precisely why i own it and why its so important to own one. Going even further, unlike most gun owners I was once even actually forced to kill a human being with it. Still own it (the police were nice enough to eventually give it back), and I still keep it, as I’d do it again if necessary to protect my family.
    What is the point of your argument that humans have no inherent right to self-defense? No one but you is buying it, you just sound like a moron trying to claim we have no responsibility for our own safety.
    What you are really saying is that our lives are not worth as much as the others who would take our lives through force. There was once a country in the middle of the last century that thought that. You would have fit right in.

  14. Kevin Keith says:

    Wake me up when 3D printers do more than make plastic junklets without about half the engineering properties of the mass manufactured materials.

    The conspiracy claptrap in here is astounding. The “man” is not trying to get 3D printers banned because he wants to put you down. The “corporations” aren’t either. Oh, and I know for a fact neither of those groups feel threatened by internet neckbeards. 3D printers, in reality, are rapid PROTOTYPING devices. What part of this do people not understand? You’re not going to make a fucking gun out of ABS, and you’re SURE as hell not going to do it with filament extruded ABS, which is even worse than molded ABS. Enough libertarian spam indeed. The puerile faux anti-authoritarian bullshit is just too much to take.

    • stunmonkey says:

      Thank you! This crap is way overblown. This mode of production can make precious little in the way of weapons parts, and what little it can make is not anything that can’t be made far better, more effectively, for less money, and with far less knowledge and skill by any moron with a cheap mill from harbor freight.

      Almost every mode of production, right down to a hammer and a blacksmiths forge, can produce a complete gun. 3d printing is actually about the ONLY mode of production that can’t.

      /Also, fuck Bre Pettis with a sharp stick.

      • Kevin Keith says:

        I’m sick of the shitty “maker” community that has become more about circlejerking about arduino, Raspberry Pi, 3D printers, hackerspaces, beers, (am I cool yet? I’m drinking ALCOHOL) and other idiocy, than, you know, actually making things. Maybe the reason we don’t hear about those people is that they are spending their times doing things other than talking about how melting plastic blobs is going to bring down “the corporations.”

        There’s no revolution. You’re not going to change the world. 3D printing is not “disruptive” (take a drink every time someone says that, I dare you). The man is not trying suppress 3D printing. If they wanted to, they would have already. You really think if the US government thought this was a threat they couldn’t do something about it? There’s no central conspiracy of Jesuits/Zionists/World Bankers/Reptilians trying to stop “freedom.” And don’t even get me started on the drugs stuff, this all goes hand in hand.

        • stunmonkey says:

          >central conspiracy of Jesuits/Zionists/World Bankers/Reptilians trying to stop “freedom”

          The Jesuits. That’s the piece we’ve been missing all this time! Of course they are in on this; I knew the Zionists, Bankers, and Reptilians couldn’t pull this off all by themselves…

          /Also, remember maker logic; If it doesn’t have an arduino in it, then how can it be a hack?

    • J.Eriksson says:

      Well first thing, you can make probably anything out of plastics. It might not be as durable as metal but it will work, even a gun barrel. Plastics with metal or ceramic fillers however can and does surpass common metals for engineering purposes. And if you think RepRaps are the only 3D-printers in the world, you’re in for a surprise.

      Example of 3D-printed engineering materials are fiberglass/carbon/aluminium filled Stereolithography (SLA) prints very tough ‘plastic’ materials. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) can partly melt steel, titanium, aluminium powder to print almost solid metals, but needs to be ‘cured’ in an oven. Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) and Selective Laser Melting (SLM) are basically a SLS on steroids and melts very tough metals such as stainless steel, titanium and inconel to solid parts but with loss of some strength. Then you have the most advanced Electron Beam Melting (EBM) machine that in a high temperature vacuum chamber prints titanium parts more tougher then machined titanium parts because of stress relieving and the absence of oxygen.

      All of these technologies has been used for more then 10-20 years or longer. Because of cheaper precision parts and better electronics these technologies are now affordable by normal companies instead of 3-4 letter government agencies.

      I agree that filament extruded ABS or PLA is a bad choice for example an lower receiver but it can be done. But their engineering skills seems to be very limited when they think you can just copy a metal receiver and print it with plastic.

      I find this whole ‘3D-printer ban’ because of weapon manufacturing or copyrights hilarious. Its not the tools that makes the craftsman.

      • Kevin Keith says:

        I’m sorry, but you are just wrong. Well sort of. Yes, EBM and SLM are very, very cool technologies which are, for now, out of reach for the hobbyist. SLM in particular is very exciting. EBM is cool too, but the problem there is that you are constrained to conductive materials (so no refractory ceramics, believe it or not I read a PhD dissertation on printing in WC-Co!).

        I’m not trying to disparage RepRap-style units. I don’t have one, but they seem like fun things to play around with, and I can see how they might be useful in certain areas (especially things like lost-PLA casting). It just really drives me batty when I hear people extol the virtues of these machines with precisely zero knowledge of what the hell they are talking about.

        So you are right in one sense: you could build a weapon with filament extruded ABS. But the only person you’re going to kill is yourself. An ABS gun barrel has more in common with a pipe bomb than it does a firearm.

        • matt says:

          It would be really hard to kill yourself with a 5.56 NATO out of battery detonation, let alone one in a plastic gun.

        • J.Eriksson says:

          I admit I have not build an actual gun or gun barrel in plastic – yet, but as I said you can not copy a metal part and swap the material to plastic and think it will work. A plastic gun would resemble more an old cannon because the thickness must be so great to be able to handle the pressure. If the pressure still is too great, just make the bore larger so some pressure can escape around the bullet or in a small hole in the side of the barrel, same technique used in underwater weapons. Some guys here in Sweden is experimenting with making rapid prototyped injection molds with 3D-printing. Injection pressure is typically 200-400MPa which is the same as the barrel pressure. The pressure is not a problem if you know what you are doing.

          It will not be a precise or a powerful gun and it will melt fast, but it will fire some bullets “safely” with thick enough walls. This is of course only safe within a limited time and before each shot it must be inspected. Most plastics, but especially 3D-printing plastics are not stable over time due to UV light, heat, plastic deformation from constant forces such as springs, oxygen, humidity etc.

          My point is that this is what real engineering is about, to solve problems. The initial idea might be stupid but what if techniques with plastics that can handle extreme pressures and temperatures give us really cheap plastic combustion engines. Screaming “NO, NO, ITS IMPOSSIBLE” did not put a man on the moon.

          But what these guys are doing with the 3D-printed parts is wrong and dangerous. Wrong usage/handling, wrong material and/or wrong design.

    • spiruviridae says:

      ABS sucks? Make machinable-wax filament and use the print as a mold for lost-wax casting. Or maybe hook up a wirefeed-welder instead of an extruder? The possibilities are endless, and they are moving out industry onto your workbench.

  15. Blue Footed Booby says:

    I fucking hate everyone who posts comments on this site, including me.

  16. Isotope says:

    Well, I can always take solace in the fact that no one arguing on this site is the type of person to ever get in my way. So unless I let myself get dragged down into this mess, I’m free to just continue making things quietly at home, including guns if I want.

    The internet (this) and tv media, including a fair bit of news programming is usually just a distraction from what is happening IRL anyway. Some people subscribe to the hype, but us sane ones recognize what is really going on and quietly act accordingly.

    On TV it’s like this:
    From the left: “ERMAHGERD errrvry gern is just a mrrdrr waiting to herpen.”
    From the right: “ERMAHGERD the lerft wants to take all mah gerns!”

    When in fact only a small amount of the population falls into either of these two extreme groups. I’ll bet even the people commenting here aren’t as passionate about their opinions as they sound when posting a comment to HAD. Or, I dunno, maybe you are, prove me wrong. How many rallies have you gone to? How much work have you put into your cause? (and time spent ranting on comment threads doesn’t count)

  17. matt says:

    The tears of all these disingenuous white liberals are delicious. I cant help but find irony in their plan, that they would want to prevent private gun ownership, which can only be accomplished by overwhelming force by LEOs or the National Guard. These same people are also often the ones who complain about excessive force from LEOs and the military oppressing foreign peoples.

  18. rdasx says:

    Last I checked, the sole purpose of a gun was to launch a projectile. Natural design objectives of that purpose would include increasing: accuracy and precision of projectile placement, speed of projectile, rate of fire, number of projectiles able to be launched without maintenance (including any loading/unloading of projectiles or requisite carriers as applicable), and portability of launcher.

  19. blujay42 says:

    It’s stupid because loads of companies and individuals build weapons all the time. Where do you think they all came from, thin air? It has nothing to do with being “Liberal” and that fact that you scapegoat it onto a political party proves your ignorance.

  20. blujay42 says:

    Oh but hey 3D printing is literally on replicator-level of accuracy (and there are not practical limitations that will limit it’s usefulness!) and is “threatening oligarchy”. Such well informed posters, ugh.

  21. Espen Klem says:

    This is just plain stupid. For the fun of it I figured out how to make a couple of types of bombs when attending highschool. But I don’t put the recipe online.

    • matt says:

      Why? It isnt anything special. You know you can buy high explosives (Ammonium Nitrate & Aluminum powder) online and big box stores without any sort of license. They are intended as exploding target indicators, and go under the brands Tannerite, Star Targets, etc.

    • spiruviridae says:

      I figured out a few of them too, and read up on several more on the internet. But you won’t read about me actually blowing up anyone. Capability ≠ Intent, no matter how paranoid the bureaucrats in government get.

  22. Joejoedancer says:

    I and criminals have the right to bear arms. If the government does not want us to make weapons then they are going to have to outlaw it. Then they will have to regulate it and our taxes will have to pay for it. Sadly the criminals will still have their weapons and only the police will have the firepower to combat it. We will pay for that in more taxes as well.

    I’m sorry that DEFCAD lost their 3D printer. And thingiverse pulled their files. That sucks!!! But now we have a new place to go that is not regulated!! (I hope)

    Oh and I hope thingiverse loses market share because of it.

  23. Who’s profits are threatened by mass access to 3D printing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93,929 other followers