I can see some argument that a 3D printer could start producing weapons of new varieties and even novel designs that work with the new medium, rather that against the flaws of the materials available to manufacture existing gun designs that were never meant to be made from polymers, etc.
Especially since another factor to consider would be the relatively cheaper materials cost, plus the exponential speed and little effort in printing prototypes to heuristically design and test hundreds of permutations of novel firearms until an efficient or specialized design has been created.
Okay… this made me laugh. Right now, non-industrial 3d printing is pretty much limited to 6"x6"x8" objects. Materials are limited to the various plastics/nylons out there. Printing a single object takes quite a bit more time than printing a piece of paper. WHEN they finally come up with a DIY printer capable of a square foot (12"x12"x12") there will be much hoopla over that engineering feat and many who will point out the low quality of the build…
It really would be MUCH cheaper to just go buy an old tank (they sell starting at $6k - and with that you’re getting a real honest to God diesel engine!) than to spend all the money and time that would be required to print and assemble a tank from a 3D printer. Especially since I doubt 6 inches of nylon is going to stop a whole lot of bullets or hold a whole heck of a lot of cement (to make it bullet proof). Then there is that whole internal combustion engine thing…
If you don’t want to be on record as buying a tank… then just rebuild an old dozier (like in the linked page).
Just because someone CAN do something… it doesn’t mean it makes any sense or will actually be a success. I personally would like to see the first 3D printed tank. They’ve already printed a bicycle and an airplane (but both were on expensive, high end 3D printers that costs more than your average used tank).
This actually isn’t even illegal, in most states of the US. I do remember reading a blog by a guy building what he called a “franken-AR” lower using just carefully measured and drilled aluminum plates, then bolted it together.
And I wasn’t talking about “right now”. What’s impossible or impractical right now isn’t necessarily going to be impractical or even expensive 20 or 50 years ahead.
There’s ten thousand welding shops out there putting together big fabrications. Best of luck controlling that. All you need is a welding machine, a bay with a crane in it, and a phone number for a place that sells and delivers steel - well, and some talented people. You can be set up in a week for very little money.
You thought you were being funny, but that’s exactly what saltpeter, a diuretic, was used for. It’s still used in toothpaste for sensitive teeth because the crystals are the right shape to fill tiny gaps in the enamel, and it adds a sausagey goodness to the minty toothpaste.
How can you “not allow” technology that already exists?
This is the big problem with gun control… trying to make a utopian world where no guns exist rather than dealing with the objective reality that they DO exist and will continue to exist regardless of what laws you pass.
As mentioned above, anybody with a decent machine shop can knock out a Sten. Are you going “not allow” civilian power tools?
It doesn’t stop them, it just reduces the activity to a minimum. People will always break the law, and if often enough - they will get caught.
I don’t believe that 3D printing technology is capable of printing the equivalent of a high powered weapon today - or in the near future. At best it might be capable of printing a crude, unreliable weapon. In the analogy I drew, the technology to copy a HD video bitstream has existed for years, yet it is pretty much impossible to do on a hobby basis. As a result, most of the bootleg videos are from ‘shaky cam’ producers, complete with coughs and sneezes from the audience - or smuggled from overseas (which is going to be very unlikely for firearms, or it would be a problem today).
Not talking about gun bans here, just that if the technology to ‘print’ firearms emerges - it will be more tightly controlled that not. There will be both market and societal pressures to push in that direction. I have no idea what the technology might be but I expect that 3D printer makers will come up with a way to make it very difficult to produce a weapon with their product. If they don’t, they might find liability issues will drive them into bankruptcy.
Nope - but I doubt that I could make one cheaper than I could buy it. I could make a simple Sten or easier yet a zip gun from a car antenna, tape and rubber bands - that doesn’t mean it will be very reliable or valuable.
Let’s imagine that I have the money to buy all the CNC stuff to make my own M16 - that is allowed now. However if I start sharing them with friends or showing up a gun shows to swap or sell them - someone is going to notice and since it is not legal to do that - I’m in serious trouble. If my buddies and I go into mass production the visibility of my actions become greater - or someone will rat me out.
Is it common for tool manufactures to be held liable for the items their tools produce today?
I can’t think there is anyway possible to legally hold a manufacture of a tool responsible for the item it produces out side of copiers and printers. But even then they are not held responsible for the counterfeit bills that are produced on their printers.
So unless you can provide some legal way that they would held liable I think this is a non-issue.
But yes it would be hard for them to restrict them from producing items, the printers don’t have any incite into the function of the device they are producing. It would require some serious AI for that to be practical and even then I would be easy to say (this is a tube for a 110 telephone block punch) and to finish it off as a gun part by hand.
The bigger issue with 3D printers will be copyright holders trying to protect their products.
E.G. There is little reason to buy some high priced a mickey mouse doll if you can just print one.
IANAL, so I don’t know about liability against tool manufacturers but I was thinking of liability in two ways - one that you could get sued because (as you point out) your 3D firearm design is a derivative of some patented or copyrighted design - or second you get sued because of some injury caused by a firearm created on the printer you manufactured or sold. There will be lawyers to pursue this, whether it sticks or not, there will be fear on the part of printer manufacturers. We have already seen a printer company cancel a lease of a printer being used to print gun parts.
If not for liability or criminal concerns, why have color printer manufacturers implemented technology to block printing of currency? Why can’t private citizens buy the presses, ink and paper used to produce currency? Those would be the CNC-equivalents in the business of currency production. If the threat to society or commerce were great enough, I would bet that CNC machines would be tightly regulated.
As far as the blocking technology, if I were a printer maker I would start by treating a 3D gun design like a computer virus. My printer would refuse to work unless updated with the latest signatures of 'banned designs and then scan the design it is about to print. Not perfect, but it would be a start. Another approach (probably not requiring heavy AI) would be pattern recognition that would block things that looked like gun parts. False positives could be corrected by some sort of central design authorization (administered by the printer makers).
Perhaps this will never happen, but if society does decide that simple individual production of firearms is a big problem, I have great faith that it will be dealt with both technically and legally - I just don’t know exactly how it will play out. Perhaps the second amendment will be interpreted to mean ‘manufacture, keep and bear Arms’ but I think most would bet against that.
None of us can say with certainty that it will or will not become possible to print a firearm, but we do have some examples of analogous technology and its fate.
Because relatively few people want to pay to own their own color printer. If millions of people did have them, you can bet software hacks would be out there for download.
AFAIK, the ink and paper are not merely proprietary but actually secret. The businesses that make them have exclusive contracts with the Bureau of Engraving.
Possibly, but if CNC machines have countless thousands of legitimate uses, what regulations could be placed on them that couldn’t be gotten around by someone determined to do so?
And what if one of the first things 3D printers are used for is to make 3D printers with all the safeguards stripped out? Once one “rogue” printer gets out there and gets copied, the genie is out of the bottle. You can punish people caught with them, but you have to catch them first.
And how did society deal both technically and legally with the production of bathtub gin? That may be what we’re looking at.
:smack:
And just how do you suppose that a 3D printer is going to be able to print the fuel needed for your RPG? How do you expect the 3D printer to fill the RPG warhead with explosives?
These machines are not magic. They start with a stock of some material and build objects out of that. Some use a laser to sinter metal dust into metallic objects. Some use a process much like a hot-melt glue gun to build plastic objects. Other machines extrude layers of resin. Still other machines use a sintering process on plastic dust to make plastic objects or use the laser to spot-harden resin in a tank.
Do you see anything in that list which could conceivably fill the head of your RPG with explosives? Regardless of what you do, if you have the stuff that goes “kaboom,” then the method that forms it into a weapon is secondary. Anyone planning to make a weapon must first solve the “kaboom” bit - and that is a MUCH harder problem to solve if you are so helpless that you need a 3D printer to form a grenade.
Seriously. If you’ve got some kind of explosive, you have no need of a 3D printer to make a weapon capable of killing people. A pile of clay (easily obtained by digging a hole in the yard,) some nails or random bits of scrap metal, a fuse (pulled out of a firecracker,) and your explosive is enough to make a fragmentation grenade capable of killing a good many people.
Read up on the printers a bit before blowing smoke, hmm? They cannot and do not create electronics parts with them. You also cannot use one to create all the needed mechanical parts to build one. A typical machine will need parts of metal and plastic. The sintered metal parts the machines can create are not up to the stresses of being used in such a machine, and there’s not a machine out there capable of making the larger parts of itself.
Bathtub gin was dealt with by the repeal of prohibition. People would rather buy quality goods from a responsible manufacturer than cheap hooch for too much money from some guy who’s prime motivation is grabbing as many bucks as possible while not getting nabbed by the fuzz.
3D-Printers are (and will for a long time continue to be) the province of hobbyists, prototype manufacturers, and special item producers. You can make small production runs of low demand items with them, but at some point it is cheaper just to make the tooling to build your gadgets and do a large production run.
As the machines improve, they’ll start taking the place of injection molding and similar processes in the factories. Home units will always be limited by the space needed to keep and process various materials, and by the space needed to keep and operate the machine.
Chemputers on the other hand – that is, 3D printers on the molecular level – have more disturbing potential. If they can make pharmaceuticals, they can make recreational drugs. And if they can make drugs, they can make explosives and chemical weapons – they’re all just chemical substances, aren’t they? All you need is the feedstock chemicals, the machine, and the software.
I discussed this last night with my brother the engineer, and he agrees and says that, moreover, illegal uses are what is going to “drive the adoption” of this technology. I.e., it will come on the market mainly because people want to make drugs with it, and that will, incidentally, leave it affordably available for non-criminal uses.
Why did drugstores sell saltpeter and sulfur?