A new low point in "Smart" Plantet journalism.
As pointed out in previous comments, even 3-D metal printers are metallurgically limited by the very process that allows the metal to be printed. You can't print processed harden metals - for springs, or sears, or barrels which all modern guns require. While it's possible to create effective "springs of other materials like carbon fiber - they're composite materials and can't be printed either. In reality while you may be able to technically print a gun, it would look nothing like, nor function like current firearms - and for all practical purposes have extremely limited practical durability and use if any at all. Why would you do all of this when you can go to HD and buy everything you need to build a functioning (limited only by the time you want to invest) firearm off the shelf. This is an absurd topic that is only interesting to someone who is totally clueless about the technical limitations of 3-D printing, the mechanical engineering of firearms and or is pathologically paranoid about guns.
Apparently Tuan (like many of the SP's contributing editors) is a product of 3-D printers and like the 3-D "guns" he writes about, only consists of only a few plastic component parts that don't actually function as a total - gun or journalist. Enough with the hack and inaccurate sensationalistic copy to bait curious and or phobic readers. Shame on you Andrew Nusca for letting this continue, not exercising any QC over your contribution editors if not actively encouraging their sensationalism, and not providing really useful or reliable journalistic content. Shame on CBS for underwriting all of the above.
