I'm not going to address the issue of gun control directly, but I think an interesting point that will be relevant in the near future is the ability to easily build your own guns with relatively cheap and accessible technology. As i'm sure many have seen, 3d printing has already proven to be a capable technology with the potential to produce polymer lower receivers or even a fully functioning firearm. As the lower receiver is the only part of a gun that is registered/considered a weapon, current access to the rest of what you need to build a fully functional rifle is as easy as a few clicks on the internet. It would even make building a fully automatic gun much easier than it currently is, which isn't extremely difficult now, but requires some machining or metal work(unless you consider the rubber band or string trick to produce a reliable fully automatic weapon too). The strength and quality of the polymers used in 3d printing is only going to improve, as well as the resolution of the 3d printer, which is already quite high. Laser sintering has even proven capable to build a complete, metal firearm, but the cost and availability for that technology will take a bit longer, I believe, to be accessible to the general public. It has also proven capable to subvert the high capacity magazine bans in states where they are banned, which isn't really as much of a new issue as driving across state lines is all that is necessary currently. My question is, does this mean that if we choose to regulate these weapons, do we not also have to regulate the machinery that has the capability to produce a highly functional and reliable weapon as well? Obviously the machinery now is not regulated, but it takes a certain degree of skill to operate the machinery to a degree which would allow someone to build a functioning firearm, which is probably a good enough barrier for most people who would want to build a firearm for nefarious purposes. When all it takes is a $300 printer and a quick download of a 3d model for a functional and reliable lower receiver though, does that not make gun regulation pointless? Would we need to expand our definition of what is a gun to prevent the purchase of the other components necessary to build the weapon, or is that irrelevant as 3d printing can produce a complete weapon, albeit one that's currently not extremely reliable(this could easily change though as the technology improves). I'm interested in others thoughts, especially as 3d printing is becoming more and more common as well as cheaper. Also just for reference here are some videos about 3d printed guns. Liberator Pistol This video talks about how the gov't wants to regulate the actual file instead, which we all know how hard that will be to find with p2p distribution. Printing of an AR15 lower Printed metal firearm using laser sintering
My cousin made a zip gun in 1976 with a piece of brass tube and a clothespin. A friend of mine made a better zip gun in 1992 with a piece of chrome moly and a lathe. Guns are easy. 3d printing only serves to open them up to the schlubs that failed metal shop.I'm not going to address the issue of gun control directly, but I think an interesting point that will be relevant in the near future is the ability to easily build your own guns with relatively cheap and accessible technology.
Right I understand that, but it's still a difficult task to build a reliable and functional semi-automatic weapon from scratch. Most gun legislation happens due to mass shootings, and in these mass shootings it's usually a semi-automatic rifle being used, which is usually what is being regulated. A 12 year old kid can order an upper receiver for an ar-15 off the internet or from a store with no restrictions and then buy a 3d printer for a couple hundred bucks, and in the future may have access to it already as some predict they will become a household item, and have a fully functional and reliable AR-15 in a matter of a few days. At least with homemade weapons there is some skill involved, and to build a reliable piece capable of being useful in a mass shooting would take at least a couple years for some random kid to hone the skill to build it, assuming he didn't have previous knowledge on metal working. If the problem with gun regulation being addressed is the ease of access to the firearms, then legislation for 3d-printing should definitely be considered, at least a background check for whomever purchases the 3d-printer, or changing the definition of what is a gun to include upper receivers as well.
No doubt. That's why we bought them at gun shows. While my buddy was machining himself a 9mm smoothbore, we were passing on Finnish anti-tank cannons for $1500. My uncle didn't like guns in the house, so my cousin experimented. My buddy Matt's parents didn't like guns in the house, so Matt experimented. Meanwhile, I could go plinkin' any time I wanted with 3 SKS, an AK-47, 2 AR-15s, an M1 garand, an M1 springfield, an AR-7, a .357, a .45 and my personal favorite, the 12-gage/30.30 over-under "bear gun." The thing that has changed the most since then is the cost of ammo. I used to get Chinese steel-core for 2 cents a round - then that asshole who makes the Thomson Contender decided 7.62x39 was a great pistol caliber so suddenly it became import-banned. Then all the crazy 'wingers decided Obama was going to take their guns so the ammo industry started gouging. Frickin' 5.56 - the Prepper round of choice - is now over a buck a bullet. Trust me, I know - I bought the limit (10 boxes of 20) for a buddy at Stockpile Defense. The 3d printer thing is a red herring, same as the "glock panic" back in the '80s.Right I understand that, but it's still a difficult task to build a reliable and functional semi-automatic weapon from scratch.
Yeah, the price of ammo is getting crazy expensive. Now our 5.45x39 surplus is getting banned too. It's a good thing I haven't bought an AK74 yet or I would be pissed. You still can't even find .22, which makes shooting for cheap pretty much impossible these days. I should mention I am against the semi-auto bans, but it's always being considered by some politicians, and if it does ever come back I wouldn't doubt if a few politicians would want to go after 3d printers too. I think you're right it's a red herring, but that doesn't mean it won't be all over tv with people pushing for regulation.