We invent a machine that lets amateurs build machine guns. What happens?

I’m saying the “OMG! Machine Gun! OH NOES!!!11!” hysteria baffles me. A guy that’s willing to murder you without provocation is not going to care if he’s packing an illegal weapon. A guy that takes the time to lawfully acquire an automatic weapon probably isn’t going to hurt you with it.

What’s irrational? You don’t like scary guns. Apparently because they’re scary. Fine. Don’t buy or make any. Same approach I take to abortion or gay marriage. Don’t like it? Don’t have one. But mind your own business, and I’ll do the same, thank you very much.

We are talking about the capability to fabricate automatic weapons at home and the results of it. Why don’t you post on topic?

I’m not afraid of guns. I’ve shot guns and have no problem with them. I don’t like criminals with guns and I like reasonable regulations. You want everyone to be able to purchase a battle-rifle, I understand that. It’s just never going to happen in the US, so maybe you should start posting on topic?

Guns aren’t scary. Grown men who get hysterical about them are scary. :smiley:

I won’t. I’ll be using my rapid fabricator to build suits of futuristic cosplay armor.

How very enlightened.

Do you support civilian ownership of nuclear and chemical weapons? Never mind.

Our culture has decided that fully automatic weapons aren’t allowed, except for very specific cases. If you don’t like that, change the law, or move someplace else.

How about you don’t tell me what to post unless and until you become a moderator? Cuz until that happens, I’ll post what I want, whether you like it or not.

The OP seems to think everybody being able to instantly replicate a machine gun would be a bad thing. I disagree. If I wanted a machine gun, I can get one now. Or I could modify a thing or two I used to have before the tragic boating accident, and have one or more that way.

If you’re talking about fully automatic versions of an AK/M-16 type military rifle, frankly, I’d rather have the semi-automatic version for most battlefield situations anyway. Three round burst capability would be nice, but full auto doesn’t really add a whole lot to that type of weapon. You’re still talking about an individual infantryman’s weapon, and a guy can only carry so much ammo. If he can burn through a clip in 15 seconds as a semi-automatic, or 7 seconds in full auto (made up numbers, no idea what actual rates of fire are), so what?

If I’m not gonna break the law, why do you care if I own the biggest, scariest, most automatic gun that ever gunned?

I’m just trying to let you know that you’re going on irrationally. Please, continue as you like.

It would be a bad thing. You don’t agree, it’s clear. But it’s obvious that fully automatic weapons as available as DVD players is a bad thing for society.

It adds the ability to do a lot of damage to a crowd in a short amount of time. As I said, fully automatic weapons are controlled in the US. It’s not going to change. Suck it up and deal with the reality (heh) of the universe that the OP is talking about.

Well, walking a burst and saturating an area with fire seem to be some of the advantages of a fully automatic weapon. You do know that the US military uses automatic weapons, right?

I don’t know that you aren’t going to break the law. I’m sure a nice, level-headed fellow like you could be trusted with a fuel-air bomb or a dispersal canister of anthrax. I don’t think you should have one though.

Why not? With the OP’s machine, if you don’t trust me, or just decide you want to, no matter what weapon I make, you can make a similar one. You can even make it all shiny, and etch scary demon skulls in it if you like. You have access to the same firepower I do, so I’m probably not going to start a fight with you.

An armed society is a polite society. A heavily armed society oughta be down right pleasant, once the assholes and idiots thin themselves out.

Well of course you are talking about a weapon designed as an automatic and later altered to become semi-auto. So of course it’s no bulkier.

But I was actually referring to weapons hat could be construed as concealable with that statement, and for that it holds true. Yes you can get a few true machine pistols, but without adding shoulder stocks you ain’t gonna hit squat.

Why less than now?

Why less so than now?

No, they won’t. The information needed to replicate dozens of parts at the molecular level to 1/100th mm tolerance is never going to be tiny.

Can you expand on this? Start with who is going to be emailing to whom, move on to how the person doing the emailing knows the person being emailed and then end with how this is going to be harder than shipping a gun.

You mean places where the cops can set up stings, like the do now with illegal porn?

You do realise that converting an AR-15 to full auto takes a lot more than just possessing a an altered sear. Right? OR have you bought into the myth of these easily modified weapons?

So now your replicator can not only produce items at molecular level, it can alter already existing material at a molecular level.

And you are worried about firearms?

And they will stop themselves being convicted of arms trafficking how exactly?
Seriously, how is this less risky than buying the weapon in the black market? How, in a world with a machine that can replicate and alter objects at a molecular level, does a US citizen download this without leaving a trail that will end up with him serving 20 years for international arms trafficking?

No they bloody aren’t. They are made of alloys and polymers, exactly the same stuff as cell phone parts are made of.

Your knowledge of firearms is somewhat lacking I fear.

Only if you bend it into a circle and define a reasonably advanced replicator as one that is vastly in excess of what a firearm needs.

It’s a magic device that is utterly impossible with today’s technology. We can;t argue that it will be better or worse than anything. However in order to have a device that can achieve in a room what it took a factory, a foundry, a forge, presses, high speed drills and a hundred engineers to achieve a century ago, or even today, is not something simple. You really will be producing this at a molecular level.

They control the molecular structure of your alloys in a factory through making many kilograms of the material molten and controlling the temperature right through the process. To do that on a desktop will be *more *difficult than manufacturing a mobile phone. Mobile phones today are made in a series of machine that would fit on a desktop. They don’t require heating of massive components to thousands of degrees and sustaining that heat.

Fine, please explain how a 3D printer can produce a material of sufficient hardness to make an acceptable rifle barrel without laying it down molecule by molecule?

We’ll start with something simple at first and then move onto the complex problems. Let’s say our barrel is 30mm diameter. How are you going produce a molten mix carbon, iron and other metals, then keep the entire barrel mass molten and prevent rapid cooling while* at the same * time printing a rifled bore through the middle of the of the molten mass?

Great, when you can explain the most basic problems with the simplest parts of the weapon I’ll accept this criticism.

Exactly. And how are you going to do that?

When was the last time someone robbed a bank with an automatic weapon?
More importantly, was the last time someone robbed a bank with an automatic weapon when a semi auto wouldn’t have been exactly as effective? Can we have a cite?

Because if the answer is “never” this comment really has no point.

Our culture has decided that free Negroes aren’t allowed, except for very specific cases. If you don’t like that, change the law, or move someplace else.

Is that really the strength of your argument? That legality equals morality?

Why not?

Again, the society we live in doesn’t allow fully automatic weapons for widespread use. So maybe you should stop fighting the hypothetical?

Do you get all of your opinions from bumper stickers? :smiley:

And if we had a thread about a machine to instantly determine genetic disease risk, and what the ramifications of that would be, you would argue that the society we live in allows discrimination on a genetic basis, and anyone disagreeing with that should just stop fihghting the hypothetical.

I’ll say it again: just because something is legal, that doesn’t make it moral.

You can hit a ton of bystanders without a shoulder stock. Also a Glock 18 can be controlled without one easily enough.

Reread my post, you’ll get it eventually.

Molecular level is something you are making up. It isn’t a real problem.

As for the files, they will be vector cad files and most likely very, very small. Especially by the HD porn standards of the internet twenty years from now.

Again, people will get them. Do you honestly think there is anything that is that hard to get online? It’s not trivial, but avenues will be there. People will construct partial plans and others will construct additional parts that can be subbed to convert to full auto. It will happen.

Yes, no one on earth actually has any kiddie porn. :rolleyes: Cops don’t have the manpower to stop it.

You do realize you could fabricate the necessary parts, right? Or have you completely not understood this entire thread?

You are making up the molecular level thing. I’ll spell it out since you are having trouble following. Person A sells an AR 15 plan. Nice and legal (for our purposes). Person B sells a conversion plan that contains the parts necessary to convert an AR-15 fully auto.

Yes, because the molecular level thing you made up as a problem isn’t actually one.

They could go to an internet cafe and upload it? They could post it because they’re an ideological gun enthusiast, like say Oakminster. They can hand you a thumb drive at a Starbucks, whatever. It will happen.

The molecular level thing is something you made up, it isn’t a real issue.

Ohhh, alloys and polymers… well then. I assume any modern replicator will be something like a Selective Laser Sintering Device. As I recall they can actually do titanium now, I assume the steel necessary for a gun barrel is within the range of what could conceivably be possible in a decade or two. In any case, it’s the nature of the hypothetical.

Don’t be afraid, it’s okay for you to be wrong.

The machining levels is the width of a laser, getting exact part sizes isn’t an issue.

No, the molecular level thing is something you made up to have an objection. It isn’t true. They can prototype metal today.

The current prototypers do it a layer at a time, no need for high temperatures that have to exist outside a laser’s beam.

I would assume it would fuse a feed stock. But I don’t know, I’m not a materials engineer, even if you are right, and you certainly are not, you are fighting the hypothetical.

You aren’t. You are going to lase a feedstock and harden it.

I trust you accept it now?

See above.

As far as I know. But you know why it isn’t more common? Because you can’t make an automatic weapon in your kitchen.

We are discussing what will happen if automatic weapons are suddenly more common. That they aren’t responsible for more damage is evidence our current policies are good ones.

We aren’t discussing that kind of world. Also, anyone that is debating rationally would agree that the two are nothing alike. We are discussing the effects in our world.

My argument doesn’t include that at all. You are flailing around and not hitting the mark.

Because you might just turn out to be a homicidal douchebag someday. I understand, you want to allow private ownership of anything up to fuel-air bombs, but your world is simply not going to happen. It is a fantasy. And as short-sighted and blindly ideological as anything Rand Paul ever said.

The OP was asking about our world, not the one you want to live in where children bring fuel-air bombs to school.

I’ll say it again: You are not arguing against the actual content, you are trying to prove how pro-gun you are. As I said, I have no problem with guns, but you are not going to get widespread ownership of fully automatic weapons in the US. There aren’t enough short-sighted people for that to happen. So why not discuss how the effects of private fabrication are going to be dealt with?

I actually agree with you. Not that I think everyone should have fully automatic forearms, but that a society with the ability to replicate them at home would have great things going for it.

I can. Fire 17 shots, accurately, from a pistol in 4 seconds. I can fire 30 shots from a rifle in approximately 7 (yes, if necessary I can prove this – PM me if you really require proof). A fully automatic AR platform role has a cyclical rate of fire around 700 rounds per minute. It can exhaust a full 30 round magazine in 3 seconds.

Actually, anyone over the age of 18 in the USA can purchase a Battle Rifle. It’s an Assault Rifle they cannot purchase.

Battle rifles are, by definition, single shot and not intermediate caliber.

Ill be using mine tp replicate food, water, batteries, etc.

For all intents and purposes, our society has banned fully automatic weapons. The fact that there are a small number of grandfathered weapons is almost irrelevant. The demand for them will not go down, but as time goes on the supply will.

I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Look at Switzerland. They have fully automatic weapons in every home, and I’m sure some don’t have DVD players, and they seem to get along well enough.

In fact, they really don’t. Take it from someone who has shot them, they’re near impossible to control and eat more ammo than a fat kid eats cake on his birthday.

IIRC the US military is trained not to use their burst or full auto settings unless in very CQB and being overrun. And then it’s burst setting (for the M16) or burst firing (for the M4A1).

And I think that should change. I say we repeal the Hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA.

Wouldn’t it have just been easier to say that you were wrong? Of course, you’re still wrong, but you obviously know more about firearms than I do and you’re demonstrating it quite amply.

My head hurts. good night.


Now, I know this is going to come as a surprise to you… But no you cannot.

The Glock 18 is downright near uncontrollable for inexperienced people, and to gain experience you need to shoot a LOT of rounds through the thing. A shoulder stock helps an unbelievable amount.

I can almost promise with 100% certainty that if you and I went to the range, put the target at 25 feet (my standard shooting distance) and you shot a G18, you would hit the target less than 6 out of 33 times. And if we had 5 targets, you’d maybe hit the first one, and miss all the others.

Machine guns require a lot of training to use.

Youd have to alter the entire receiver. Actually, it’d be simpler to have the plans for the upper and lower separate, and then the full auto version just use the full auto receiver and sear. Everything else would be the same.

Yay modularity.

Actually, our previous policies were good ones, our current one is an example of why gun owners are reluctant to compromise on any issue with gun grabbers.

These guns weren’t used in any crimes at all between 1932 and 1986 (one? I think – the other was a police department owned one iirc), and then they STILL banned them.

In my opinion, the ability to replicate firearms in your home would be significant enough to vastly and dynamically alter society as a whole.

Much like the Internet altered society, only more significant.

Please refrain from using obvious logical fallacies (argument to the extreme, or something to that effect). It’s disingenuous and insulting, and it makes it difficult for people like me, who agree with some of your points, to agree with you on anything, when you’re insulting and demeaning for no particular reason other than for the sake of being insulting.

But that ignores the facts. I don’t want wide spread ownership of fully automatics, I would just like myself, and other citizens who are otherwise law abiding and willing to jump through the legal hoops of getting one, to be able to get one without spending enough money to buy a new damn car.

No real help to the topic as a whole but there are these kinds of examples of concealable automatic weapons too.



No, I won’t because you aren’t making any sense…

Then stop handwaving and answer my question.

you are talking about technology thatis completely inconceivable with today’s technology, yet you say that you know that it isn’t a problem.:rolleyes:

How the hell can a vector cad file contain information on the distribution of atoms and the crystal structure within a substance? Seriously just… how.

Because you do understand that if both the alloy and the crystal structure aren’t correct the weapon will likely crack up. Right?

So where exactly is the information on atomic distribution and crystal structure in a vector file?

No, they won;'t.

See I can argue by assertion as well.

Who said hard? You said it was risky, not hard. It’s not hard to get an automatic weapon right now.

No, it won’t.

:confused: You were talking about using plans for innocuous modifications like sears to circumvent risks. Now you are saying you just manufacture the whole part to automatic spec.

Can you explain how the hell this is an *improvement *on just manufacturing the whole gun fully auto?

In sort, what is your point here?

And I’ll spell it out nice an simple: how the hell this is an *improvement *on just manufacturing the whole gun fully auto?

You’re not making any sense. Why doesn’t person B just sell the plans for a fully auto weapon? This makes no sense at all.

Then stop handwaving and answer my questions.

If it’s not really a problem then you can tell us the solution, right?

Once again, you are completely losing track of your own argument.

You argued that obtaining a physical weapon was risky because you had to go out of your house, make contact with someone who was involved in illegal arms dealing and they had to hand you a physical object which it was illegal to posess.

And now you say that you can negate those risks by going out of your house to an internet cafe, make contact with someone in Russia who is involved in illegal arms dealing and they have to physically hand you a thumb drive which it is illegal to possess.

WTF. Do you have any idea what position you are actually arguing here?

Then stop handwaving and answer my questions.

If it’s not really a problem then you can tell us the solution, right?

Firstly why couldn’t it also manufacture a phone, which is what you said it could never do.

Secondly, how does this solve the problem of making a barrel. Do you propose to make one half of the barrel and then magically weld it to the other? Or perhaps you intend to drill a hole through molten metal.

Then stop handwaving and answer my questions.

If it’s not really a problem then you can tell us the solution, right?

So they can currently make half a barrel, and then they build up the rest millimetre at a time, welding each layer to the rest with no loss of strength.

Can we have a cite for this please.

And this adresess the problem how?

Accept it? It doesn’t even make any sense.

Right, so one incoident, that could have been just as effective with a semi automatic weapon, and resulting in the loss of zero lives.

So not really what i asked at all is it?

No we aren’t. We are discussing whether they will be, and if so what.

Really. I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Do you want to buy my rock? :rolleyes:
Is this really the level of your debate?

Yes, we are.

No they wouldn’t. All right thinking people agree with me.

Is this really the level of your debate?

So a magical replicator exists in our world?

Is this really the level of your debate?

That is all your argument includes.
As I’ve shown, you can’t keep straight what you are arguing about. Thisis yet another example.

Because all those freed black might just turn out to be homicidal douchebags someday. I understand, you want to allow blacks to be equal to real people, but your world is simply not going to happen. It is a fantasy. And as short-sighted and blindly ideological as anything Rand Paul ever said.

Is this really the level of your debate? Legality makes morality?

Learn something new every day. :smiley:

The type of prototyper we’re talking about isn’t going to be able to create things like that in the near term. It’s like a printer that lays out a material layer by layer.

Switzerland doesn’t have the social issues America is dealing with. Also, I think I read that they remove the capacity for full auto when discharged from active service.

I know they aren’t magic, but if you want to injure a bunch of people in a crowd my guess is they work pretty well.

I know, but most crimes are in CQB, aren’t they?

Fair enough, but is it likely?

How about ten feet? How about across a 7-11 counter?

Effectively. You can spray and pray with no training at all.

Kind of my point. The prototyper could make the bits necessary to change it.


Read up thread. I said that:

Blake said: Why not?

I took that to mean he thinks private ownership of fuel-air bombs is acceptable. What do you take that as? If private ownership of fuel-air bombs is acceptable, at some point a child will bring one to school.

Fair enough. I’m okay with hoops a plenty, but fabricators in the basement throw the hoops out the window.