First 3-D-printed gun fired, but its digital blueprints make bigger bang

[jimmy olsen]

Can't wait to see how 3D printing revolutionizes industry on a broad economic level. The firearm industry, not so much.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/first-3-d-printed-gun-fired-its-digital-blueprints-make-6C9790795

Helen A.S. Popkin   –   6 hrs.
First 3-D-printed gun fired, but its digital blueprints make bigger bang

With a shot heard round the Internet, the first known 3-D printed gun is a reality. But the bigger ruckus comes from the gun's digital blueprints, now available for free download by any shooters who want to build their own.

Cody Wilson, the polemic face of the not-for-profit 3-D gunsmith Defense Distributed, fired the organization's latest prototype at the opening of a 28-second video posted on YouTube Friday. "The Liberator," as the weapon is provocatively titled, is a 16-piece firearm made almost entirely of ABS plastic, with a metal firing pin and an embedded metal shank meant to provide enough metal mass to comply with the 1988 U.S. Undetectable Firearms Act.

Blue and white, and bearing more than a passing resemblance to a Star Trek phaser, the .380-caliber pistol fires with a single "pop" in Wilson's hands. Apparently, the design works, though this version was rendered unusable after firing six rounds.

Eight months into its mission to create and distribute the computer-assisted design (CAD) for a 100-percent 3-D printed gun, Defense Distributed is about as close to this goal as it can legally get. That is, provided laws don't change to make what the group is doing illegal.

Even now, Defense Distributed's latest success — though it may be a rather costly and cumbersome way to obtain a firearm, especially one that tends to self destruct — has gun-control advocates on the move. This was predicted by Wilson, who has long said that his group's ultimate goal is not to build arms, but to test constitutional rights.

"I think this isn't a project about firearms, it's a project about political equality," Wilson recently told NBC's Nightly News.

Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas in Austin, is federally licensed to manufacture and sell guns and gun parts, as long as they're not fully automatic. Not only is it legal for Wilson to make "The Liberator," but distributing its plans for others to make it is also legal, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

"An individual who wishes to manufacturer a firearm for his or her personal use does not need a license, as long as it isn't for an automatic firearm," an ATF spokesperson told NBC News.

But the fact that the gun can be homemade and is largely plastic — and therefore harder to spot via metal detectors — has made it the center of a new debate in Washington.

On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., endorsed a bill, entitled the Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, that would bring the 1988 law up to date by banning 3-D-printed guns that "have no metal and could therefore slip through a metal detector." Under the law, it would be a crime to build such a weapon.

"We're facing a situation where anyone — a felon, a terrorist — can open a gun factory in their garage, and the weapons they make will be undetectable," Schumer said at a conference. "It's stomach churning." Schumer said his bill would not restrict the use of 3-D printers for other purposes.

Schumer was speaking in support of legislation, proposed in the House of Representatives Friday by Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., that bans "homemade, 3-D printed, plastic high-capacity magazines."

"When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science fiction. Now that this technology appears to be upon us, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms," read Israel's statement.

On a technical level, enforcing the ban could be challenging. Firmware locks for 3-D printers and takedown protocols for CAD files for firearms have been proposed by some, and scoffed at by others.

"Every one of those measures is a nonsense and worse: unworkable combinations of authoritarianism, censorship and wishful thinking," author Cory Doctorow wrote in criticism of Israel's initial proposal. "Importantly, none of these would prevent people from manufacturing plastic guns. And all of these measures would grossly interfere with the lawful operation of 3-D printers."

It's legal for most Americans to buy guns, and it's also easy for many people to acquire guns illegally, too. Industrial-level 3-D printers currently capable of producing "The Liberator" can cost upwards of $10,000, and require some training to operate. They may never put guns into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain them, but they still may become tools for nefarious acts.

"This technology is emerging so quickly that few law enforcement officials know what a 3-D printer is or understand how it can be used," Jim Bueermann, former Redlands, Calif., police chief who is now president of the non-profit Police Foundation, told NBC News.

"I think we are going to see some very creative, technologically astute examples of criminal acts that are enabled by this technology," he added. "This is one of the unintended consequences of the democratizing of the Internet."

— With additional reporting by Suzanne Choney

[Neil]

How could it possibly have any effect on the economy, other than to give copyright lawyer a new avenue to attack mankind?

[Berkut]

The thing about this sotry that I find interesting is that it illuminates this rather bizarre attitude of gun nuts: That guns, by their very nature, hold some kind of special status such that they have a value in and of themselves that is special and unique - almost religious. I take that back - there is nothing "almost" about it - it is taken as a matter of faith that guns are some kind of mystical object to be valued in and of themselves.

What is the utility in creating a plastic gun just because you can? On the one hand - so what? It is inevitable that someone would do it given the technology. On the other hand, congratulations - you get to be the douchebag who actually did it and is now so very proud of himself?

Why not be the first to make a 3D dildo or a 3D garden hoe? There is nothing magical about a gun - being able to make one in a 3D printer does not make you special. It just means you get to be the first person to publish something that we will all regret as one of the unfortunate consequences of the rise in sophisticated production processes that makes what used to be difficult easy.

Hell, one of these days some other set of assholes will be the first to create a homemade nuke. I am sure they will think themselves exceedingly clever as well.

[derspiess]

This is almost a non-story, other than the amusing aspect of it making certain people shit their pants. These all-plastic guns would probably be more dangerous to the guy firing them than to anyone downrange.

With a cheap drill press you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 receiver and manufacture your own firearm, completing it with parts ordered through the mail. All legal and without serial numbers. Surprised that's not making the news these days.

[Tonitrus]

Printable guns?  Bah.

Wake me up when they start printing women.

[Berkut]

This is almost a non-story, other than the amusing aspect of it making certain people shit their pants. These all-plastic guns would probably be more dangerous to the guy firing them than to anyone downrange.

With a cheap drill press you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 receiver and manufacture your own firearm, completing it with parts ordered through the mail. All legal and without serial numbers. Surprised that's not making the news these days.

That has made the news in the past - at least to the extent that I was aware it was possible (although I don't recall where I learned that).

I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.

[Ed Anger]

Printable guns?  Bah.

Wake me up when they start printing women.

Mmmmmmm, Lucy Liu.

[viper37]

if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.

More like 1300$:
http://www.zdnet.com/cube-3d-printer-goes-retail-at-staples-for-1299-7000014876/

It's a cheap model, but it shows that this technology is evolving rapidly. Within 5 years, everyone with a computer will have a 3D printer.

[CountDeMoney]

I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.

It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.

[garbon]

It's a cheap model, but it shows that this technology is evolving rapidly. Within 5 years, everyone with a computer will have a 3D printer.

Because everyone knows we need more plastic crap.

[DontSayBanana]

That has made the news in the past - at least to the extent that I was aware it was possible (although I don't recall where I learned that).

I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.

One, no.  It's a hell of a cheap investment into brokering untraceable firearms, though.

This is problematic, though- the trouble is that there's no meaningful way to recreate the technological barrier to 3D printing weaponry.  This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.

[CountDeMoney]

This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.

Particularly with fruitcakes like this Cody Wilson guy involved.  They will be way ahead of the curve.

[derspiess]

This is problematic, though- the trouble is that there's no meaningful way to recreate the technological barrier to 3D printing weaponry.  This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.

Censorship sounds like a terrible idea. What would be the precedent, when blueprints, recipes, and instructions are and have been legal for all sorts of dangerous illegal devices.

[Neil]

Now gun control is 'censorship'?

[11B4V]

I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.

It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.

Yes

What is the utility in creating a plastic gun just because you can? On the one hand - so what?

Really it boils down to......1. because he can and 2. Just because.