Cody Wilson, the man who wants Americans to 3D print their own guns(theguardian.com) |
Cody Wilson, the man who wants Americans to 3D print their own guns(theguardian.com) |
To show the difference in the developments, compare the single-shot Liberator featured in this article to the revolving Washbear designs by FOSSCAD: https://imgur.com/a/M1A0P/layout/horizontal#0 or the semi-auto Shuty MP-1v4 https://twitter.com/fosscad/status/718190339090059265
Cody is more of a political agitator and propagandist, whereas the FOSSCAD community are typically much more gun-enthusiast/engineer-y - although they share similar political opinions, their motivations seem to be much technical/recreational rather than political.
Quick comment: isn't "Free Open Source Software & Computer Aided Design" a pretty misleading name for a group that is apparently only interested in 3d printing firearms?
Maybe FOSSDEF would have made more sense but it's kind of too late now.
In addition, you could mill your own parts pretty easily, those plans have been available for decades as well.
The harder part in the case of an AK is the parts kit that has all of the other parts that must be actually machined. Step 0 of making an AK from a shovel is "buy a parts kit made from an entire old, previously functional gun minus the sheet metal and wooden furniture". In terms of making a true firearm from scratch an AK would still be fairly difficult. In terms of making a technical "firearm" (the controlled part), the AK is one of the simplest.
The real question is , should the law take any effort toward minimizing gun ownership by dangerous fruitcakes? If yes, then making it hard to trivially 3d print a gun is kind of necessary, otherwise, like you said, anybody with a brain could do it. Instead of now, where it requires a bit more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4
Now, it is single-shot - but because they are so easy and cheap to make, someone who wanted to cause mayhem could just make and preload several dozen, and discard them as they shoot them. Still plenty deadly.
That's the thing, really... guns aren't particularly complicated mechanically to begin with, and they are even less complicated if you strip them down to bare essentials - which, if you only intend to use it at a close range, still leaves them quite functional.
On the other hand, the reason why guns are so simple is because most of the complexity is in the ammo. While that can be reloaded, it requires primers - and those can't easily be made at home.
So, if you want gun control that actually works (in a sense of preventing dangerous people from owning an overly destructive device), it has to be primarily about ammo, not guns.
this has already been done plenty of times, and i have a sneaking suspicion is far more widespread than anyone is letting on.
meanwhile, you can just buy a hundred 80% lowers off the internet for probably less than a grand, and keep them around just in case.
plenty of "normal" people stockpile this stuff. they just aren't telling anyone about it.
Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zpwpmGOvc
and another of it being test-fired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TXz9kb83yc
Literally 10 seconds on Google.
Print the Legend, from 2014, on the story of 3d printing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3557464/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license...
If true, that's extremely surprising to me as a US citizen.
wasn't this the case with crypto 2 decades ago?
> “No,” says Wilson. “It does not register on my meter. Whatsoever.”
Seems like this could be phrased better at least.
People keep trotting out this argument, and it remains just as wrong. "Regular" firearms by themselves probably aren't enough to resist the US government, but that isn't the point. Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out. And what people gloss over are factors like:
1. Military units that defect to the "rebellion". Now the rebellion has tanks, airplanes, drones, etc.
2. IEDs and other improvised munitions which are capable of doing more damage that just, say, an AK-47.
3. The idea that "quantity is its own quality". Enough people, armed with AR-15's or AK-47's can constitute a formidable force just through sheer numbers.
Anyway, nobody is out there pretending that they are going to overthrow a hypothetical "tyrannical US government" using nothing but light weapons. But that doesn't mean that those light weapons aren't still important.
Unless you believe a bunch of randoms with rifles are a match for a professionally trained army equipped with the latest tech. In which case I think Iraq may wish to disagree with you.
I reject your premise. How will militias assemble before these conflicts can take place? Facebook? I'm not being facetious. A ruthless government could, in a state of emergency, cut off the internet in a locality, or lean of Facebook to turn over names, or etc. The internet IS the battleground. Physical control of land with guns is a small, receding target. Guns aren't protecting us from the government, the EFF is.
I'd love to see the people take some of the power back without a bloody, internal war.
Yes, that's why basically all Europe lives in a dictatorship now-a-days due to our gun control laws.
But realistically i can't even imagine USA going to war with any major trading partner, much less their own population.
More likely is some corrupt local city government gets ousted by organized people defecting to neighboring towns... again neighboring towns have police / weapons. But you can also just sue cities in state / federal court probably, as they don't have sovereignty. Not to mention elections. So again, i don't really see cities doing anything too stupid to a majority of their own population...
i think the need for weapons will continue to decrease as time goes on and the world economy consolidates more and more... weapons are mostly for sport, just like boxing or mma. Its more of a staged drama...
Syria is an on-going example of people involved in limited engagements with a somewhat modern government, defending themselves with small arms. They don't need to be ideal to be better than nothing.
Even in Syria, a large part of the armed forces refused to fight their own people. I imagine in America it would be a greater percentage, and you'd only be facing limited local insurrectionists. And it'd be enough to hold out for help, rather than battle them to a stand-still ala Rambo.
And as I might comment elsewhere, drone operators have to sleep sometime, somewhere, and depend on a huge logistics tail; the US has never fought without a pretty secure rear, certainly not after the War of 1812 (threat of invasion from Canada).
And then look at Iraq, and Syria, and all of the other insurgencies involving irregular combatants armed with nothing but improvised explosives and small arms, that have now been totally put down by the drones...
Except that none of the above is true :p
Considering that all those armed insurgents in those countries didn't stop governments (domestic or foreign) from killing them, I'm skeptical on (2). Regarding (1), well, if you want to believe that... (shrug)
[1] to the extent that any war can have these descriptors slapped on them. War is hell, The US has done inhumane stuff, I don't think they did as much as for example I think they did in Vietnam.
One thing i haven't heard explained in detail by people who justify the 2nd amendment as a safeguard against tyranny is what conditions they personally think justify armed insurrection against the government. There's a lot of abstract support for it, but how could you support insurrection in the abstract without knowing which concrete circumstances would cause you to take up arms against the government? How many pro-gun rights people are down with leftists who want to dismantle capitalism, for example? What about right-wingers who want to do away with liberal values? I think abstract arguments for gun rights, like abstract arguments for free speech are terribly inadequate compared to concrete values.
You know how that guy took that video of himself asking anti-abortion protestors, "if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we put women who procure abortions on trial for murder?" and they all just short-circuited, like they'd never even thought of the question before? And how Trump stepped in it when he suggested that women who procure abortions should be punished?
The "ok, so exactly when do you plan on using that thing, and with what group (because we all know you're not going to fight tyranny by yourself)?" questions are sort of like that, but for pro-gun people. They either haven't really thought it through that far, or they're not willing to talk about it, or both.
FWIW, I think many gun rights people have the same delusion about guns as anti-gun people, and that's this: a gun in the hands of an individual is a thing of immense, Godlike power for mass destruction. The pro-gun people are all <boromir>We can use this power for good</boromir>, and the anti-gun people are all <gandalf>drop that ring!</gandalf>.
But where they both go wrong is at the heart of what you've pointed out: guns are an effective political force only when wielded by organized groups towards a specific set of goals. Everyone just having a gun in their closet is about as effective as everyone just going out and voting (without having a party or a plan). You can do that and feel like you've got some power, but you're not actually changing anything or threatening the status quo. It's just a political fantasy that you're buying into.
As to the "uncommon resources" part- what percent of the people that you know have two steel tubes of the right diameter? I didn't say it was like securing refined plutonium for an A-bomb, but I stand by my statement that those resources are not common possessions.
As to the time part - yes, absolutely, it does. Just because you've got craft skills does not mean they are common. Do most people who own a home defense gun build them themselves using common parts from a hardware store? In fact, I bet that's extremely rare.
I didn't say they were super hard, and I didn't say the resources were super rare. They're not out of reach of any dedicated person who is intent on achieving a goal. But then, a speed bump doesn't force you to drive slower, either. You can sail over them at 90 miles an hour, once. But speed bumps still do their job.
And it doesn't require any specialized knowledge or skills at all - I couldn't fix my own sink, but I could make a working zip gun.
The reason why you don't see this happening a lot in practice is because it's easier to get a proper gun in US, and it's much more functional. But if you make that harder, you'll have to deal with this workaround suddenly becoming a lot more popular.
Speed bumps are a poor analogy, I think. They work, because their intended effect is localized - you put them where you want to avoid speeding because it's too dangerous. There's no similar locality in gun control.
Guns, in and of themselves, don't deliver anything. They're tools, that's it. Whether or not the people of the Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan find peaceful stability or not depends on a whole laundry list of variables.
Of course, that boat sailed a while ago.
Also, I'll bet the American government is a lot more afraid of the people than most European governments are of their people. I suppose that could be argued either way to be a good or a bad thing.
I bet the French government is more afraid of their people than the American government is.
The French people shut down their economy and raise holy hell when the government starts acting contrary to their interests.
The Americans mumble some crap about 2nd Amendment rights online, and then fire up steam or crack a beer.
3D printing is presumably going to become ubiquitous, and require no skill or experience to operate and maintain.
The courts can't make something constitutional.
That's literally what they do. They determine if executive or legislative branch actions are constitutional or not.
They interpret the constitution, not write it.
I suspect there is another reason to consider about reticence to discuss where the line is and what exactly the plan is once crossed: the POR against insurgency is find, fix, and destroy [0] and there has been plenty of domestic [1] practice. Why make yourself an easy target?
So, to your first point that they haven't thought about it meaningfully, I agree. Fashion items.
[0] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f...
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/... etc
As for where the line is drawn, well, I think the biggest reason people don't want to draw any such lines is because the US government isn't a tyranny and isn't heading there in any way.
One of the biggest political issues in recent times is, of course, health care, but can you imagine how stupid it would come off as to try and lead a revolution against mandatory health insurance? Likewise for every other hot-button issue--armed revolution because now gay marriage is a thing? Because it's harder to find incandescent light bulbs? Mandated gas mileage improvements?
Wherever you'd draw the line and not have it be 100% asinine, it'd be so far from reality that even declaring "here and no further" would make you look dumb.
Additionally, even without formal organization, they do serve as deterrents against crime. And then, of course, there are also individual benefits, but that's yet another matter.
Me, I have a number of declared lines in the sand, the first and most obvious is required registration of all firearms. Although the kinds of enemy of the state I'd become is not so obvious, e.g. I won't start wacking government officials. On the other hand, other people [censored by dang, but please don't open that door].
I have zero confidence that rational, reasonable people (and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable) would be included in the new politics following that revolution, and that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.
And it's not unreasonable for people to ponder such things when they look at history, see the parallels to today, and realize that they _could_ be targets. For example, I'd imagine that there are quite a few Muslims in US pondering these very questions right now.
It's the specific lines that some people state ("registration of all firearms", seriously?) that expose questionable judgment on their part. Or, alternatively, the lines can be reasonable, but their perception of reality is so skewed that they treat absolutely mundane things as crossing those lines in their mind. All the conspiracy theories around Jade Helm were a good example of that.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide that for others. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" (misattributed to Trotsky).
and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable
And we should care about your opinion because...?
that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.
Then, if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard. The other half just wants to be left alone, but that's obviously not happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_against_brother
And that was with the sides largely being split geographically.
To make a fully functional firearm from there, you also need a complete upper - can be had for another $400 or so these days; and a complete lower part kit with buffer tube and stock - can be had for less than $100. For a total of $800, some assembly required (or you can pay another $50 and have pretty much any gunsmith put it together for you).
So basically, a person can take GG and produce an unregistered, untraceable, no-background-check-required AR with it for $800-900. For comparison, the Bushmaster AR that was used in Sandy Hook shooting costs ~$700.
But it's not very difficult to start at that level: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cartel-gunsmiths $25K for a pro CNC machine isn't much in the scheme of things.
For now "Just get a CNC mill and learn how to use it" is still a substantial hurdle. I think it's fair to say that it's a hurdle that Adam Lanza wouldn't have managed to overcome.
But yeah, either putting nutty things on that list (like firearms registration, as you said), or looking at the state of the country and thinking we're anywhere near the need to overthrow a government, that's what's concerning.
There's a therapy term, catastrophizing, which I think fits here. It's where you take some situation, imagine the worst thing that could happen from it, and assume that is already happening or is about to happen. Like firearms registration leading to, what? FEMA death camps? Enslavement by the Bilderberg group?
And that's the pattern you see in all these overthrow-the-gubmint kind of conversations: X (harmless) leads to Y (not likely) leads to Z (increasingly unlikely) leads to W (totally implausible) and that's why we need to start killing our fellow citizens at X.
It's scary, but at the same time not too scary, since a lot of this stuff just falls under the umbrella of internet-tough-guy talk.
Even in the US mandatory registration has already led to confiscations in California and New York. And more of that will likely happen if enough of the coming "Gunpocalypse" gets enacted in California, although that might await a new governor, Jerry Brown is by no means all bad on this issue.
So you're just as welcome to question my judgement as I your knowledge of history, but neither is very productive when it comes to thinking about what various people will do if pushed too far.
"if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard."
So, because a bunch of folks on twitter talk about rape culture or because gay people can now marry their partners...line in the sand kind of thing? I mean, you won't disclose the things that make you want to use your guns to overthrow the government we all share, but "progressive" is part of it. I'm so curious which leftie policy it is that makes you want to start killing (literally, in your own words, Mister "War is interested in you"!), but maybe asking questions is something else that will literally drive you to attempt to overthrow our government. Who knows?
Man, if that isn't scary, I don't know what is.
Criminals wishing to dispose of weapons used in crime.
Savvy types who sell guns that are worth less.
The ignorant/those who don't want to be bothered to easily dispose of guns that they've inherited or whatever.
The savvy types will work the line to buy guns from the latter that are worth significantly more than the price.
But that's not the scenario I'm thinking about, nor is it relevant as of now in a country which has more than doubled its gun production since Obama was elected, with > 100 million being sold in that period (obviously not all those were new).