Video: Yes, the 3-D printable gun really works

posted at 7:21 pm on May 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

Fifty years ago, Americans dreamed of flying cars. Instead they got smart phones, beer drones, and working handguns that can be pressed from plastic in one’s own living room. Fair trade?

Jazz wrote about this on Saturday but the video wasn’t available yet. Now it is. There are still barriers to the technology — 3-D printers remain expensive-ish, the range and accuracy of the gun is unclear at the moment, and the first test using larger ammo resulted in an explosion — but that will change, as it always does. Congressional Democrats are already vowing to ban the weapons; if you’re familiar with torrent sites, you know how likely that is to succeed. I’m curious to see how professional gun manufacturers handle it. Do they start working on their own printable designs or wait to see if freelancers can come up with something that’s accurate and durable enough to give the pros real competition? I assume they’ll hold off, just because they won’t want to mainstream this option as an alternative to buying from them.

The criminal potential here is obvious, but I’m imagining a re-run of Iran’s Green Revolution in 2009 in an alternate universe where 3-D printers were ubiquitous. Different outcome? With stuff like this on the horizon, regimes like theirs may have to pull the plug entirely on civilian telecommunications during moments of tumult.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

to reduce deaths genius

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Then ban leftism.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 6, 2013 at 8:29 PM

The Founding Fathers didn’t envision 3D printers when writing the Constitution!

Ban 3D printers now!

tetriskid on May 6, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I’m pretty sure the scribes of the time were in three dimensions. But leave it to the liberals to take new technology and immediately demand it to be controlled as part of their agenda. I wonder what they would say if somebody makes a home abortion kit with a 3-D printer.

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 8:30 PM

proposal is basically to have a high penalty for owning a gun

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM

That’s all any one really needs to know about this partisan liar.

cozmo on May 6, 2013 at 8:30 PM

let’s allow them on airplanes…after all, baggers have the right to print a gun anytime, anywhere!

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 7:43 PM

So…how many firearms did the 9/11 hijackers use?

catmman on May 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

catmman on May 6, 2013 at 8:27 PM

You missed the point I was going for. I’m not against the new technology. But what I am saying is the cold steel acts as reminder of responsibility. If/when the plastics take over steel, a new step in responsibility training will have to be added to compensate.

nobar on May 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Will it pass through a TSA scanner ?

burrata on May 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Heh. (Like the way this guy’s mind works)

Cleombrotus on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

So…how many firearms did the 9/11 hijackers use?

catmman on May 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

0…because they’re BANNED on planes!!

but I thought criminals always get around regulations?

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996.

But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were “all over the place,” says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer “is there in black and white,” she says. “The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz2SYuPax5y

Nonpartisan…please read and learn.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

0…because they’re BANNED on planes!!

but I thought criminals always get around regulations?

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

And they did. What’s your point?

Count to 10 on May 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

but I thought criminals always get around regulations?

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

the strawman again???

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

because they’re BANNED on planes!!

but I thought criminals always get around regulations?

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Guns are banned completely in Chicago. So they must have no homocides involving firearms, right?

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

0…because they’re BANNED on planes!!

but I thought criminals always get around regulations?

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Let me guess: You took “How to be Dense in One Easy Step 101″ at Harvard Law. The most violent attack using civilian aircraft was carried out with items you would find in most bathrooms, yet you still don’t get it.

NotCoach on May 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

let’s give it to 3 yr olds, and the schematics for the guns and ammo…must raise responsible gun owners while they’re young!

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Yes our Mensa friend has shown up, the one that wrote this:

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

proposal is basically to have a high penalty for owning a gun

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM

That’s all any one really needs to know about this partisan liar.

cozmo on May 6, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Nonpartisan is a banner and didn’t even respond to the question.

The question was:

What’s your proposal to get existing guns out of the hands of criminals, and not just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?

Also, if citizens are not allowed to protect themselves, should government officials be criminally liable for any violent crimes they allow to happen?

malclave on May 6, 2013 at 8:23 PM

There is no way Nonpartisan has a college degree and a high screwel diploma from a sub-par public screwel is even in doubt.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Yes, the 3-D printable gun really works

+

Yeah, I can see the advertising campaign right now.

Be the first in your neighborhood to build one. Will it work? Or will it blow up in your face? Be the first in your neighborhood to find out!

GarandFan on May 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Yes, the 3-D printable gun really works

Firing one 22 caliber bullet at no target, that is.

Congressional Democrats are already vowing to ban the weapons;

Meh – since a page you print from a printer you buy for 39 bucks at Cheapo Electronics has long been identifiable/traceable back to the printer, I suspect it wont be a problem to apply similar tech to megabucks 3-D printers.

if you’re familiar with torrent sites, you know how likely that is to succeed.

You can already learn to build a .22 zip gun from YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_A7gyZ8tRc

whatcat on May 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM

NotCoach on May 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Or homeowners tool boxes I should say.

NotCoach on May 6, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Guns are banned completely in Chicago. So they must have no homocides involving firearms, right?

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

to reduce deaths genius

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Then ban leftism.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 6, 2013 at 8:29 PM

lol

Axe on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.-BBC 2002

Oops.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:40 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Did you know Australia is an island? Did they teach that at Harvard Law?

NotCoach on May 6, 2013 at 8:40 PM

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Yet this idiot claims all we need are more laws.

lyin’partisan gets the facepalm.

cozmo on May 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Ummm…they did.

derp

catmman on May 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

For the law abiding, they might as well.

Count to 10 on May 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Interesting phrase. But I’m pretty sure the time chamber had a way in/way out. You could always destroy it and see what happens.

nobar on May 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

It’s not a problem for police states: they’ll switch to controlling ammunition. (Which they already do, anyway.)

It does you no good to have a gun if there’s nothing to load it with.

Steven Den Beste on May 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Does it need bullets?

Since Big Sis is buying up all available bullets, this gun is less useful than a baseball bat.

I don’t know much about guns, but I watch movies and am pretty sure an unloaded gun is pretty much useless.

marybel on May 6, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Plastic-Cased Telescoped Ammunition;

http://www.google.com/patents/US5233928

If the program can print out a working “polymer one-shot” (cyberpunk comes true!), it can certainly print out a plastic cartridge case. Add projectile and propellant, and you’re done. Electrical ignition eliminates the need for a primer.

In the 1970s, the KGB developed a three-shot derringer-type plastic pistol using tempered glass bullets (hollow-tipped and loaded with a lethal nerve agent), with wafer batteries and hair-thin wiring for electric ignition. It was specifically designed to get through airport security, especially metal detectors and pat-downs. Its exact purpose was never stated by the K, but it would have been a useful gadget for assassins tasked with “removing” a target intercepted at a foreign airport. To say nothing of would-be airline hijackers.

The point being that this technology, or its equivalent, has been around for a very long time. Our august leaders’ hyperventilating about it at this late date is a rather classic example of shutting the barn door after the damned horse has already jumped the pasture fence.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Nonpartisan what happened to violent crime in GB after the ban?

Also do you realize that the method in which they tabulate crime data is much different than ours and it in fact undercounts crimes?

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

nobar on May 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I’m trackin…though I disagree.

Again, many folks have been packing polymer pistols for decades now.

catmman on May 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Nonpartisan tell us about Australia…pssst I gave you the answer.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Nearly two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.
Sherlock if they did not have a gun they would have found a way.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

So what your saying is: they know other areas have less stringent laws but they wrote laws that don’t work anyways. You hang with a smart bunch there Sherlock.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

proposal is basically to have a high penalty for owning a gun

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM

How do you ensure that the law is applied fairly to everyone?

FOr example, how much jail time would the D.C. Atty General be facing for refusing to prosecute Dick Gregory on the assault weapons ban?

malclave on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Will it pass through a TSA scanner ?

burrata on May 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Will ammunition pass through a TSA scanner? A plastic gun with no ammo is a paperweight.

Wendya on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Nearly two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.
Sherlock if they did not have a gun they would have found a way.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Yeah … the fact that the leftist idiots count intentional, self-inflicted wounds as “gun violence” shows how desperately stupid they are. But, that’s typical for a leftist. He would blame me and restrict my rights and freedoms for his own suicidal tendencies – even though his suicidal thoughts are about the only reasonable ones a leftist has.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM

proposal is basically to have a high penalty for owning a gun

if a robber robs a store with a knife, lets say its 3 years…if he does it with a gun, add 5 more on top of it

if a person isn’t a criminal but is caught with holding on to guns, they will receive misdemeanor and a fine, but a second offense would entail jail time

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM

People who fear liberty are far more dangerous than firearms.

Wendya on May 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM

malclave on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Its a lib idea, of course it won’t be. Bill Ayers types will be in charge.

cozmo on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

So why aren’t the police just stopping the guns from entering the city?

Why isn’t the city government applying the laws to those people?

malclave on May 6, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Congratulations to Cody Wilson and everybody at Defense Distributed that helped with the project.

FloatingRock on May 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM

3D Liberty.

Of course the BBC is afraid of it.

KirknBurker on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Will it pass through a TSA scanner ?

burrata on May 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Will ammunition pass through a TSA scanner? A plastic gun with no ammo is a paperweight.

Wendya on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Hide a cartridge in a rabbit’s-foot keychain.

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM

and people in chicago live in a hyperbolic chambers with forcefields that prevent them from traveling to neighbhoring states with much less stringent gun control, right? *facepalm*

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Same old game. Pass gun control and gun crime goes down, it’s proof gun control works; but pass gun control and see gun crime remain the same or go up, it’s all the neighboring states’ fault.

Keep grasping at those straws.

TheDriver on May 6, 2013 at 9:07 PM

The murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961: 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.

US:

From 1955 to 1959, there were 38,680 or an average of 7,736 per year.

From 1997 to 2012, there were 243,769 murders or an average of 15,236 every year.

In the mid-to-late 70s and in the period from 1985-93, the US averaged well OVER 20,000 murders per year.

UK:

From the period from 1955 to 1959, there were a total of 1,442 murders or an average of 288 per year.

From 1997, when the UK gun ban went into effect, until 2012, there were 11,853 murders or an average of 741 per year.

In 1967 the British government changed the way crimes were recorded. Some originally recorded as homicide were no longer counted as homicide, these include deaths caused by the IRA, which were moved from murder to acts of terrorism, for example, and those reclassified as manslaughter.

The US counts manslaughter deaths in its murder rate. The UK doesn’t.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM

nonpartisan….. runs off again….. trend???

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

nonpartisan….. runs off again….. trend???

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Harvard Law called.

NotCoach on May 6, 2013 at 9:20 PM

I get the sense that nonpartisan has mental issues. No sarcasm.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM

So, $8,000 for a secondhand printer on E-baby?

Should be down to about $1,000 in 3-5 years. Then we can all have guns.

YES!!!!!!!!!

patch on May 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Funny thing happens when the facts fly. NonP flies.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM

nonpartisan….. runs off again….. trend???

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Maybe his mom called him for dinner.

malclave on May 6, 2013 at 9:34 PM

So, $8,000 for a secondhand printer on E-baby?

Should be down to about $1,000 in 3-5 years. Then we can all have guns.

YES!!!!!!!!!

patch on May 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM

It won’t take that long — porn industry will get in on 3D printable porn and then it’s all over.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I get the sense that nonpartisan has mental issues. No sarcasm.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM

I’m entertaining a few theories, myself. But, one in particular: English as a second language would explain a few ticks. Lots of little things. I mean, in addition to the rest of the story.

But, from

. . . You went to Harvard Law?
Axe on May 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM

yes

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Snort.

Resist We Much on May 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

–I was done with nonpartisan. (Really from “yes.” I just love it when RWM snorts.) There’s only so much silly I can play with before I start to feel foolish just for playing with it. Some bad movies are so bad they’re good, and some are so bad they’re painfully boring.

I suppose he could still take it back, though. Fresh start.

Axe on May 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Can we ban crazy people and criminals? Because that is the only kind of gun control that would really work.

Millions and millions of Americans have guns and use them responsibly. But because we can’t ban crazies we have to take away the freedom of innocent responsible people? I don’t think so.

And by the by, technology isn’t going away. If it isn’t this, it will be something else. Many, many, more people die from car accidents than guns. Guns are news because of rarity, like shark bites or lighting. Maybe we should ban cars and sharks and thunderstorms.

We have to get control of our mental health problems and stop focusing on guns.

petunia on May 6, 2013 at 9:47 PM

It won’t take that long — porn industry will get in on 3D printable porn and then it’s all over.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 9:36 PM

The day computers can directly stimulate nerves without the stimulee having to undergo major surgery (ie; no need for chips on your brain and wires running out the back of your head), modern ‘liberated’ women are going to be obsolete overnight. Unfortunately, that won’t be the only effect, and we could undergo a major culture shock.

MelonCollie on May 6, 2013 at 9:54 PM

A kid is far far more likely to be struck by lightning than to ever be involved in a school shooting. As petunia notes it is in our face and then blown out of proportion.

CW on May 6, 2013 at 9:55 PM

The day computers can directly stimulate nerves without the stimulee having to undergo major surgery (ie; no need for chips on your brain and wires running out the back of your head), modern ‘liberated’ women are going to be obsolete overnight. Unfortunately, that won’t be the only effect, and we could undergo a major culture shock.

MelonCollie on May 6, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Haha yeah. See: Japan.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Haha yeah. See: Japan.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. It’s like the Wii – the first serious attempts to sell a new kind of interface to the general public. Once it really takes off…

MelonCollie on May 6, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Don’t get me wrong – I’m pleased with the technology. I like advancements like this. But is it really smart to create a weapon prototype that will eventually lead to a weapon that cannot be sensed by a metal detector? Can you imagine the security nightmare plastic guns will make for airports? What’s next? Printable shell casings? And what if they used an unconventional load, one not detectable? Or hell, if the 3-D printer can make the gun, why not make the bullet itself? Then they just need to have some powder and a cap. I think the potential for misuse might outweigh the benefits of pushing this technology.

eyesights on May 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM

So how long until some Congressman demands we make it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy ANY printer because they don’t understand that a 3D printer is different than the ink jet you pick up at Walmart??

My 17 year old and his friends are in a pre-engineering class at school and have to get me to buy duct tape for them because local ordinance prohibit the sale of it to minors. However they can buy gas, lighter fluid and fireworks legally.

mechkiller_k on May 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Points:
1- news (again) out of UK?
2- “backwater”? You b*tch
3- manufacturing at home? Not likely…back in the 80s the idea of PCs was that the public would create their own programs at home. More than likely, ‘off the grid ‘ gun manufacturers…

socalcon on May 7, 2013 at 9:33 AM

porn industry will get in on 3D printable porn and then it’s all over.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Um, all over what?

socalcon on May 7, 2013 at 9:36 AM

to reduce deaths genius

nonpartisan on May 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Ummmm. Banning guns won’t reduce deaths. So far, we’re at allllmost 100%……..

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM

When the senator was talking about the dengers of “terrorists bringing these guns on planes” why didn’t Jake Tapper ask the senator if he thought the terrorists would follow his suggested law?

Tom C on May 7, 2013 at 10:43 AM

“…The criminal potential here is obvious…”

Is a little overstated. It’s a single shot pistol of dubious endurance or accuracy. I don’t see gangbangers throwing down their Glock “fo-tays” for this any time soon. They’ve had pen guns since the 40′s that can easily be snuck on to planes (as well as other devious configurations…not like our TSA people are brilliant). I always take Rotring 600s (pens – Google it) which have a brass body, never had a TSA agent bother me about them, or flag it in the X-ray machine. Additionally, you might look up a zip gun, which any tool can make – which doesn’t look like a gun.

I don’t think a single shot pistol is an ideal hijacking weapon.

But good. That cat is out of the bag, can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Now what are they going to do? Ban plastic? Ban 3D printers? Ban the internet?

John_G on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Do they carve these things out of soap and cover them with shoe polish?

I forget what movie this was, but it reminds me of Woody Allen writing a note to a bank teller: “I am pointing a gub a you.”

Note to Senate: Make sure you impose background checks on sales of pressure cookers!

Steve Z on May 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The day computers can directly stimulate nerves without the stimulee having to undergo major surgery (ie; no need for chips on your brain and wires running out the back of your head),

Is that how Barack Hussein Obama won re-election?

Steve Z on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

You know, it’s like the Dems gun grab penchant sorta inspired this workaround. What next, a ban on .25″ steel brake line tubing from the local auto parts store?

/ha ha!

roy_batty on May 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM

It’s a single shot pistol of dubious endurance or accuracy.

John_G on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Here is the job spec for the WW2 Liberator from the wiki -


It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. A resistance fighter was to recover the weapon, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons.

In other words, the whole point was to get you a weapons upgrade.

roy_batty on May 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I doubt that a plastic gun would be of much use in an aircraft hijacking, at least as far as forcing the pilots to go somewhere. The end results of the 9/11 hijackings kind of put an end to letting hijackers take control of the flight deck under any circumstances.

I seem to recall that it was the Glock? that was supposedly a “plastic gun” despite a metal barrel, that would be “undetectable” or so was feared. I don’t remember for sure.

In any case, using an illegal or banned plastic gun would simply be a factor that a criminal or conspirator would take into account when preparing to commit a crime. That would be not that much different from someone using an ordinary firearm, obtained in whatever manner possible, which he could not legally possess. There certainly is a market of sorts for disposable firearms that criminals would use, certainly there would be one for plastic guns for criminal purposes as well. A ban is not going to stop that.

Russ808 on May 7, 2013 at 9:21 PM

I look back nostalgically on the 1970s when we only had to worry about leftists and nationalists on planes with guns.

Gun related violence is at a 20 year low and yet the left’s predilection for group therapy by “doing something” is never satiated.

It must be exhausting for leftists to be constantly and breathlessly sounding alarms.

R Square on May 7, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2