Discussion on:

Uh-oh! 3D printer produces a real gun

It has been quite some time since the US military used M16s. The current weapon is the M4. It does resemble the M16, but is not the same weapon. Just a bit of an update for the writer.

The M-16A4 is the current model being used by the majority of the armed services. For the most part, only special forces and some regular units (depending on the need and availability) are using the M-4. The Marine Corps will be the primary user of the M-4 in the future as the Army are looking to transition to whatever ends up coming out of the OICW/Individual Carbine (and related) projects. However, most of the rifles in service today are still M-16s - generally A4s. The M-4 isn't all that new itself.. it has been around for close to 20 years now.

The M4 is the current rifle being used by the armed services, for the most part only the USMC use the M16 anymore. also the Individual Carbine program is mainly just updating the M4 with a piston instead of the current direct impingement.

Finally, it is correct to refer to the M16 lower and M4 lower as the same, as the differences between them are so minute that they boil down to time of manufacture, as both weapons use over 80% of the same parts, and to convert a M4 to an M16 one would only need to swap out the uppers.

Every technology has an equal opportunity to be used for bad as it does for good.

This reminds me of the early '90s when people were talking of opening up the Internet to the world; the proponents could easily see all the wonderful things it could accomplish, and yet were completely blind to the possible negative uses that quickly became a reality; spam, international crime, hacking, malware, espionage, child pornography, trafficing & exploitation, etc.

And I'm sure there are things even far more dangerous that guns that 3D printing will be capable of.

When any technology becomes available to the world, you have to expect that it will be used as people see fit, good and bad. The problem isn't the technology. It's people.

I don't think people understand that some criminals are adopting to tech, or adopting tech, faster than Govt. agencies do. They (criminals) see the opportunities for themselves, and act quickly, IMHO....

Thanks...
TW

I wonder what they'd build. Anything really scary like a flying drone, RPG or missile would require complex control circuitry and motors which can't be printed and/or explosives, which would limit their spread. A gun's all simple moving parts and the "warhead" is simply ammunition (which people aren't printing - yet). Any ideas what else might be coming up, other than "a bigger gun"?

The obvious answer is to print intelligent life!
Many artificial parts already exist. Most are simple items like bladders and ears, but some parts won't be needed since they are basically "support" systems. Look to the (not too distant) future and you might see a world where condoms have been replaced by software...

still living in their mother's basement will start printing women.

The flying drones are already done. The good is anyone will be able to manufacture the guns of their choice. Cheap guns for the poor who are the people most likely to not be able to afford the $1500.00 cost.

Who needs "The Weapon Shops of Isher," when you can roll your own on your kitchen table?

Yes, someone remembers that book!

Good morning tuan, coffee in the patio first? "Lupita, coffee for el Senor Tuan por favor".

On this, we see eye to eye, it indicates just how foolish additional firearm laws would be. The criminals, as have been conclusively, and logically shown, will not obey them, just the law abiding ones, and 'they' aren't involved in these shootouts..

I remember in WW-2, we, and the various resistance movements were shown how to make simple pistols of common household products. On a one to one encounter at close range they were quite effective. We were even shown how to make improvised powder and ignition systems for recycling cartridges.

Many of these variants were used by the criminals after.

So apparently we have a system of creating short liived low powered firearms via the computer, what next ? control of computers and 3/D printouts? Where does it stop?

"We didn't need no stinkin computer".

Don Jose de La Mancha

Why is this any more controversial than printing any other object that could be mis-used?

A razor handle? A house key? A counterfeit Rolex?

Besides, there is no suggestion that the guy printed the barrel or chamber or any of the parts necessary to prevent the thing from going BOOM! when the trigger is pulled...

Exactly, he only printed the lower. No barrel, no upper reciever. Go to Guns.com and read the real article about this feat.

Why do we continue to focus on the thing instead of the behavior. Do people actually believe that if the thing was not available then the behavior would not ensue. Be very careful what you wish for. As our militaries and police forces gain an ever increasing technological advantage over the common citizen, it is only a few steps away from tyranny. Our founding fathers were quite aware of the risk of allowing their citizens to keep and bear arms. They also knew that the risk and cost of tyranny was far worse.

If someone in the audience in the Colorado movie theater had been armed and trained I suspect that the casualty list would have been only 1. The perpetrator.

It would be great if every situation with an evil shooter had one armed and trained citizen! Now imagine the same situation with a dozen armed and trained citizens. Bad guy starts shooting. 12 people draw guns and look around. Who shoots at who? When and how does the cease-fire happen?

Several of the people in the theatre that night were combat veterans. At least one was a Marine who had served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and had seen combat in both countries. In other words, a man who knew combat situations, had MOUT training (and had likely been involved in urban combat). In other words, one thing which would have happened in all likely-hood, was that the shooter would have been taken down rapidly by people who knew how to do just that. It could have saved lives if they'd been armed that night.

You liberals really don't get anything. You wouldn't have the freedom to write freely without private gun ownership. Remember the American Revolution? Probably not.

Gun control can't fix the problem, which is the heart of man. It wouldn't have fixed the recent or past Colorado incidents, Virginia Tech, or anything else. People with criminal intent will always get guns and even if not, they'll try some other way. Gun control only means that a responsible citizen doesn't have the means to stop violent crime. And no, the police are never there to help. They only come to clean up the mess.

Only those who believe that man is basically good apart from his environment and that we can always trust the gub'ment would buy the scare tactics that you've wasted our time with.

Attacks by people such as the recent Colorado incident are news BECAUSE THEY ARE RARE!

Worry when they no longer get reported.

9/111 only changed anything because of the number of times the 'this changes everything' statement was repeated.

Tom Clancy wrote about using aircraft as bombs in 1992, and really, that's all a Kamikaze or V1 bomb was...nothing new, just hype.

The security we had been using on aircraft had been in use sins the D.B.Cooper skyjack in the 70's....and it didn't and couldn't have stopped the 9/11 attack since the 'weapons' were onboard.

The 'new' 'security' masses people at the main terminal instead of at the entrance to the gates--larger crowd, bigger target. It still doesn't stop weapons (repeated tests get guns and quatrts of liquids past checkpoints--last week an entire 11yo boy made it from England to Italy w/o even a boarding pass.

But your odds in the US of being killed by a terrorist are the same as your furniture crushing you--and lower than a traffic accident, heart attack, or any of dozens of things.

The significance of making a receiver is that it is the ONLY tightly controlled part of the weapon, barrels etc. are easily come by...most 'de-milled' weapons are missing only the receiver.

'Zip guns' have been made for years--even inside prisons, at close range, it doesn't take much.

But guns aren't needed to kill, anyone trained can kill with their body parts or just about anything handy--a rolled magazine for instance.

Aurora could easily have been much higher body count w/o guns, since a few well-placed explosives, or some locks and chains on doors and smoke bombs or even yelling 'Fire!' could easily kill more in a crowded theater.

You want to worry?Worry that no one in political office is subject to drug testing, or required to know anything about the Constitution, or even about the position they fill.
These folks make the rules, declare war and spend more money than you can possibly give them every year...most of which goes to their friends with a little bit extra for themselves.

In 10 minutes with a short piece of cordage, I can make a sling which will throw a 4 oz projectile accurately up to 80 meters--hard enough to kill. It's quiet, easy to conceal and quite legal and deadly.

Most martial arts weapons are adaptations of common tools and such, developed precisely because the rulers banned traditional 'weapons.'

Controlling weapons is not only ineffective and impossible, it does nothing to control violence. To control violence, you must eliminate tolerance for violence throughout society. Starting with children, businessmen and politicians.

Get rid of unenforceable and redundant laws--disregard and contempt for any law rapidly spreads to all law.

Quite reacting to violence with violence.

Stop intolerance of others simply because they are different.

Your biggest threat is the government you set to serve you, which now serves only those who run it and their pals.

Start by stopping to think before acting. When you begin to be scared because of something someone is saying, stop,consider, is there reason to fear? Or are they using fear to motivate you into making poor decisions?

This is article is a month old and 75 more people have died since it was written. The death toll passed 300 this week.

After reporting on 3 straight weekends with 10 or more killed before May 1st the major media stopped covering the murder fest going on in Chicago.

To watch ABC, CBS, NBC and the like you would thing no one has died in Chicago since June.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

Every weekend has had at least 1 report of shootings. They do tend to focus more on the young people that get injured or killed and I am certain they are not reporting anywhere near the actual amount of incidents.

Gun control laws are silly in that they only deter "law-abiding" people. The majority of shootings are done by gangs or people who acquire their weapons through UNLAWFUL means. People fall on the demand for Gun-control laws because they need a crutch to lean on. They want reassurance that their actions are helping the situation and are easily sated by the band-aid solution that falls off easily when put to the test.

- - Controlling weapons is not only ineffective and impossible, it does nothing to control violence. To control violence, you must eliminate tolerance for violence throughout society. Starting with children, businessmen and politicians. - -

Wow, for the price of the Stratasys printer that puts out that quality you could buy a pallet of functional weapons. But a better point to all of you idiots that have a problem with this...there are about a million other easier ways to get a weapon.

The US government bought Chinese AK47's for the Afghan security forces at about $50 apiece.

Guns are useless without ammo.