
The world’s first entirely 3D-printed gun has been made - marshc1
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/154996-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-has-been-made
======
Zimahl
There are a couple issues with the article that I'd love to address.

 _While DD was making progress with its 3D-printed gun experiment, the company
managed to get a license to become a legal manufacturer and vendor of guns,
somewhat muddling the legal status of the 3D-printed gun, a weapon anyone with
a 3D-printer could make at home._

There's absolutely no "muddling" here. You can do any amount of gunsmithing
you want, at home, and it's legal without a manufacturer's license up to a
very specific point. You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol
grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and
upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make
the upper without a license and you're in trouble.

Side note: don't make a silencer either. They are easy enough to make and you
don't need the license to make it, but you do need the license to own it.

 _The Liberator still has some more testing to go through_

It's probably damn close to a 1-shot gun and then replace the barrel. It also
won't have rifling so it won't be accurate. The cartridge next to the gun in
the picture appears to be a .22 short which is probably the maximum the
plastic can handle. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing when a .38
or 9mm cartridge is fired. The plastic won't contain the significant force.

 _but the lack of requiring a license — and the gun’s lack of a serial number
— are unsettling thoughts._

Much like you don't technically need a license to make a gun, you don't need a
license to drive a car. Simple guns have been made by machinists for a long,
long time. And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are
found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time. But
cops see guns with serial numbers shaved off all the time.

I understand the threat of plastic guns getting on a plane or through security
but you'd still need to get a bullet through as well which wouldn't be so
easy.

~~~
ctdonath
When it comes to law and guns, don't be wrong. One oops and you're in prison
for 10 years.

 _On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make
the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in
trouble._

Not in the USA. Here, the "lower receiver" (at least for the AR15, the
quintessential semiautomatic rifle most presume for this discussion and what
DD is making) is the gun. Uppers you can freely make; lowers you can make in
small quantities so long as there is no indication you'll sell them as a
business.

 _[Silencers] are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make_

OH YES YOU DO. It's a $200 manufacturing tax per item, background check, Chief
LEO signature, and related paperwork _before_ you start making one. _This_ is
one of those things that WILL get you 10 years in prison fast.

HN being an international phenomenon, your jurisdiction may vary greatly in
both legality and severity of punishment for violations.

~~~
Zimahl
I don't have an AR but I assumed that because the cartridge flows from the
lower receiver and is chambered in the upper that the upper was what was the
ATF definition of a gun. My mistake, I got them backwards. The lower is what
needs the background check through an FFL.

I guess I also didn't read the law correctly with respect to a silencer. I
figured since it's illegal to possess without the proper paperwork you
couldn't make one anyways since one you completed it you were immediately
guilty. I didn't realize there is a separate law covering the process of
building one but I guess I should've since guns require a manufacturing
license.

~~~
ctdonath
Don't assume anything when it comes to gun laws. Two simple examples should
make the point:

\- In New York (and many other jurisdictions) law, a rifle is not a firearm.

\- In US law, "armor piercing" as defined has nothing to do with the
capability of piercing armor.

Not kidding.

~~~
Zimahl
But the Feds define a rifle as a firearm so does it matter what the NY law
defines? Unless they are defining it as something that is much more strict,
which, as draconian as the gun laws are in NY, that wouldn't surprise me.

~~~
ctdonath
My point was to not make statements about gun laws unless you in fact know the
law, and to demonstrate how common wisdom can be very legally wrong.

Wanna make it a serious matter? A "sawed off shotgun" is legal if made one
way, and 10 years prison time if made another - identical parts used either
way.

------
cdjk
I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the
barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US
firearms law) at home for a long time with cnc equipment:

<http://cncguns.com/>

In fact, it's possible to buy an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 and some
jigs that will let you finish it on a drill press. 80% is the magic number at
which it's no longer considered a firearm. Even with advances in 3D printing
I'd much rather shoot a metal firearm than a printed one. I'd also assume that
they're using a fairly pricey 3D printer, or doing a lot of finishing work,
and not using a stock reprap or the like.

If AK-47s are more interesting, they can be made out of sheet metal.

Also, I'm pretty sure the name is a reference to the FP-45 liberator, which
was designed to be used by the resistance during WWII.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator>

~~~
KevinMS
Everybody should be aware of this.

This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more
convoluted.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM>

UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact
I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears.

I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal
background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault
clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a
drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online
legally.

~~~
sillysaurus
Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle?

(I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)

~~~
cdjk
There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have
essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on
assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary.
Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle
with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing.

My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly.

[1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic
weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you
pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given
the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely
rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.

~~~
sillysaurus
Why are people against banning civilian ownership of all guns in principle?

I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought
me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with
real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my
pellet gun.

What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?

~~~
cdjk
Shooting guns is fun. For some people, a real rifle, even something like a 22,
is going to be more fun than a pellet gun. Trap shooting and sporting clays
are also going to be difficult with a pellet gun.

Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't
make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San
Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where
someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against
bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun
is probably a better idea).

Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone
lives in a remote area.

Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley
won't work in Alaska.

~~~
cube13
>Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban
doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example)
in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where
someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against
bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun
is probably a better idea).

Actually, a starter pistol might be just as good. Unless you've done something
to actively piss off the bear, like getting in between a mother and her cubs,
the noise of the gunshot is generally enough to stop the bear from charging
you. Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard
and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.

And I don't think there's that much of a bear spray/gun debate, because it's
probably better to have both. At least, that's what I've been told by a friend
that goes every year to Yellowstone to fly fish.

~~~
jlgreco
> _Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and
> will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off._

Wouldn't attempting to kill the bear generally make a noise to scare off the
bear too? I could perhaps see a starter pistol being as good as a regular gun
for protection against bears, but better?

Also _(in my extremely limited experience)_ starter pistols are not
particularly loud compared to regular guns anyway, which makes sense since who
wants to wear ear protection at a sporting event?

------
waffle_ss
Based on the name Liberator and the shape, it's probably an homage to the
FP-45 Liberator: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator>

The FP-45 was created to basically be good for one shot. You would use it at
close range to incapacitate someone with a better weapon (e.g. an occupying
soldier) and take theirs.

~~~
nickpinkston
Exactly my thought too - surprised that wasn't mentioned.

Also funny in this is that this gun was produced by the OSS (pre CIA) for WWII
resistance groups. It was dropped en masse behind enemy lines in hope that
they'd find their way to the partisans.

------
columbo
Correct me if I'm wrong: But anything you make with a 3d printer, ignoring
super-high-precision work, you can make out of a block of wood and time,
correct?

The only real benefit to a 3d printer is it idiot-proofs the task and provides
for greater precision. It'll be easier to create 10,000 cheap plastic guns but
if you only need 1 because you're in the middle of a Tom Clancy novel then you
may as well assemble it from pvc and other store-bought stuff.

3D printed guns will make great fodder for spy novels, but I don't really see
them as a threat.

~~~
krschultz
That's not actually true. 3D printers are additive manufacturing, i.e. you
build up from nothing. Most hobbyist tools are generally subtractive
manufacturing, i.e. you start with a block of raw material and remove sections
with the tool. Additive manufacturing allows you to make some parts that are
impossible with subtractive manufacturing.

That said, you can make an entire gun using subtractive manufacturing, pretty
standard metal, and a CNC mill. If we had a standardized library of CNC mill
instructions you could just as easily share that as a STP file for 3D printing
a gun.

~~~
AUmrysh
3d printing also allows you to make a lost-plastic cast with far less work
than it would take to whittle and chisel a gun mold out of wood.

------
winestock
Scott Locklin had a weblog post giving background information on past attempts
to use 3D printers to make guns. Note that this was published in August of
last year.

[https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-
engineerin...](https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineering-
journalism-reporting-on-3-d-printing-of-guns/)

------
swalsh
I remember back in the days around columbine when zero tolerance became a
thing. It was huge news when kids would bring plastic toy guns to school and
get expelled.

At least now there's some credible reasons to be afraid of that gun that looks
like a toy ;)

------
noonespecial
Remember that a hammer and a pair of pliers is also a "gun" if you happen to
have a bullet. Its dangerous to fire, hard to aim, and has a very low muzzle
velocity, but it does meet the criteria.

~~~
bd_at_rivenhill
Actually, I think you need some sort of tightly fitting metal tube as well,
otherwise the cartridge case will just split.

~~~
stcredzero
There have been many prison guns made from a piece of wood with a slot cut in
it. That's enough to keep the case from splitting enough of the time on a low
powered round to be useful.

------
reader5000
The analogous technological situation is with color printers and
counterfeiting money. The color printer did not bring about a "counterfeiting
revolution" or "distributed currency" or anything like that. Simply
manufacturers of the printers have software preventing printing of realistic
currency.

When the 3d printing industry reaches some sort of maturity, IF it ever goes
mainstream, similar measures will be instituted.

Hell, I haven't read the relevant law but quite possibly he's already in
violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Any federal prosecutors keeping up
with this story? Ortiz?

Basically all you have here is a privileged middle class kid who enjoys media
attention and getting reactions from people.

~~~
revelation
The idea of software in a printer preventing you from printing counterfeit
currency is ridiculous. These things (and similar nonsense in Photoshop et al)
have only served to annoy graphic designers.

The only thing "protecting" real money is the many embedded, hard to replicate
patterns and markers.

Of course, you can't put the genie back in the bottle with how guns work. You
can't write software that will prevent anyone from printing gun parts, as if
there was a way for the software to tell intentions from abstract 3D shapes.

~~~
dexen
_> The idea of software in a printer preventing you from printing counterfeit
currency is ridiculous._

...but it works well enough. It is embedded in certain graphics program and in
(computer-driven) printer/copiers for office use. Not sure about printer
drivers, but probably just as well.

The tech behind it is quite simple, actually:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation>

However, I can't imagine any similar solution working for 3D print. When one
tries to copy bank notes, the `EURion constellation' is there, included by the
issuer.

However, when trying to print third-party designed 3D item, if the designer
did not bother with including any protective markings, those simply won't be
there.

------
thangalin
In 1822, Charles Babbage wrote about a plan to print mathematical tables using
a machine. Yet not until 1979, 157 years later, did Epson's competitively
priced printer hit homes, establishing a market for such trinkets. The
burgeoning realm of computer printers was launched. Today, mass-produced
printers flourish, present in nearly every North American home, owing to a
visionary mathematician.

In 1984, Charles Hull invented stereo-lithography: the ability to print
tangible 3D objects. By 2002, scientists had engineered a functioning kidney,
demonstrating the idea of printable organs. In 2008, the first printer capable
of printing most of its own parts was created. The year 2012 saw the first
3D-printed prosthetic implant. Printing 3D objects is a technology poised to
bloom.

In 1901, Ransom Olds invented the modern assembly line, ushering an era of
mass production. His idea allowed manufacturers to make everything from
horseless carriages to automatic weapons on an unprecedented scale, but not
with free rein. Factory owners, distributors, and stores must abide by certain
regulations, including strict gun controls. In a world of mass-produced,
manufactured goods, drafting laws that restrict who can buy or produce guns
makes sense.

Hardly will it take 157 years for 3D printers to go from hobbyist tinker-toy
to standard home appliance. The technology is advancing faster than a speeding
bullet. A decade hence will dawn the age of 3D printers, wounding the mass
production industry and killing certain government controls.

Once people can print plastic cups and assorted nicknacks from their couch,
the proliferation of untraceable guns could be... explosive.

------
kailuowang
Has anyone 3D-printed a guillotine yet?

------
kumarski
What is the cost of printing vs. CNC milling a gun?

~~~
jlgreco
Are you including the cost of buying/leasing the equipment, or just the cost
of renting time on someone elses?

I imagine CNC mills are easier to rent time on unless you've got a local
hackerspace (which quite possibly will not be keen on printing a gun for you).
They would also produce a much more practical product, ...and probably be much
more expensive to buy outright.

If instead of a CNC mill you just need the equipment to finish an 80% lower
receiver, then you need _far_ less money than either of the other two options,
and you get a very practical product for your effort.

------
stephengillie
Any bets on how long before they get some sort of printed plastic projectile
to fire from this gun?

~~~
bmelton
That already exists, basically. You could manufacture hard-resin BBs for use
in shotgun shells, or even hard-plastic discs for use in something like a
Taurus Judge right now.

Manufacturing bullet tips wouldn't be any strange feat either, though you'd
almost certainly find them less effective than metal bullet tips.

The real trick would be in printing gunpowder, which I'm sure is a somewhat
tangential field of research.

------
samstave
They couldn't believe this had happened. Not because they couldn't imagine
it... even though it took some great amount of imagination to develop such a
cleverly devious plot, but because it has happened ___now_ __.

The thought of this happening in 2014 was much earlier than many would have
predicted. Any average team would have thought this scenario to be a reality
in the much more distopian cyber-punk fantasy of 2020... but 2014.

It's still amazing that the device didn't raise red flags. The fact that she
was able to get it through security is surprising and understandable at the
same time.

There was no way the average security agent would have any clue what he was
looking at, but even then, her demonstration would fool even the most
skeptical security officer.

Witnesses and video show how her demonstration of the device marvelled all
that saw it. While painted nicely, looking sleek and high tech - it's output
seemed innocent enough. The device is an engineering masterpiece. Hard to
believe that this much thought and innovation went into a plot so vile and
base.

It's unclear if this is the only device - but given the age we live in, surely
the plans are already in the hands of every major organized crime group on the
planet... At least that is how we should operate.

The demonstration, using the touch screen on the side of the device to select
from a vast list of printable toys and do-dads was impressive. The speed with
which it output the objects was unreal. The quality unmatched.

Nobody would have suspected what was to happen next. She got into the
conference, past both the physical and electronic scrutiny and quelled any
suspicion of her intent.

What exactly happened next is still be investigated, but as best as we know,
she was able to take the device into the storage room, complete her print and
return to the conference floor to carry out the assassination. The gun printed
was a marvel. A multi-shot, 100% printed mini rail-gun. The full body printed
from the very machine that would then provide its power and ammunition.

At first, there was so much confusion, the rail-gun was relatively silent, and
even though the PM was shot in front of nearly a thousand spectators, the
deadly near-silence of the railgun prevented immediate involuntary reactions
the crowed would have to any other gun.

This was different, a new era, one of those events where you know the world
has changed and will never go back.

The device's ability to print out a fully working, multi-shot railgun in a
matter of minutes and for that weapon to then be able to be used within
minutes of being produced to assassinate one of the most prominent leaders in
the world amidst the most advanced security governments can provide is truly a
game changing event.

The assassin, while an unassuming, yet beautiful woman in her early 30s is
believed to come from the Balkans. A region with a long history of
controversial relations with Russia. While plots against Putin may have been
considered in the past - it was not thought that there would actually be any
credible threat coming from this region, and certainly never any threat as
technologically advanced or innovative as this successful plot against him.

It's only been hours now since Putin was assassinated - but the repurcussions
from this event will be massive, swift and likely extreme.

3D printing of conventional guns has been hotly debated in the last two years
- but this, this is on a whole new level. There are already talks of licensure
and control of designs, supplies and media. There is no way to track plastic
and no way to regulate it. Governments are in a panic as to how to deal with
this now.

~~~
ctdonath
While a dramatic presentation of the hysteria over the subject, a key point is
overlooked: the problem is not the tools, but minds using them. The drama
depicted could be equally depicted with a personal handshake and a pen.

We are far from on-demand instant-printing of effective railguns, and security
personnel would be well aware of the possibility. Assassinations have happened
for millenia with far less sophistication.

~~~

Recalls a bit of literature...

H.ma: I cannot allow you before Theoden King so armed, Gandalf Greyhame... by
order of Grima Wormtongue.

[Gandalf nods, and they hand over their weapons]

H.ma: Your staff.

Gandalf: Oh... you would not part an old man from his walking stick?

[Prolonged discussion ensues]

Gandalf: Be silent! Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth! I have not
passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.

[Points his staff at Grima]

Wormtongue: [Terrified] The staff! [To guards] I TOLD YOU TO TAKE THE WIZARD'S
STAFF!

~~~
samstave
I know :)

It's fun to think about such scenarios though... Play Dan Brown's thoughts
through your head occasionally...

------
farabove
This is just sad. We don't need more guns in this world.

------
randyrand
If we can make guns entirely out of plastic, why haven't we seen plastic guns
before?

For decades we've been able to do everything that's possible with a 3d printer
with older technology injection molds, cnc mills, ect.

~~~
bmelton
The interior of a firearm with a firearm control group, firing pin, etc., is
kind of detailed. On top of that, to manufacture it with more moldable soft
plastic would be very hard because the resultant product wouldn't be
substantial enough to withstand the pressures of a bullet's expelled energy.

You might have been able to manufacture some hard-plastic extruded gun in the
past, but as with this one, it wouldn't have been great, and it would have
cost a lot in the way of equipment. The only real novelty here is that it's
doable from home on a relatively inexpensive device.

------
jared314
I have the feeling this will end up like the electric car.

It will be built, proven/sold, squashed, replaced by something inferior from
outside the country, then slowly reappear over the next decade.

~~~
jlgreco
Heh, what exactly could be technically inferior to the gun pictured? I can't
imagine it being good for more than one low powered round, and not even
reliable for that.

Also, these people just distribute CAD files for free over the internet. I'm
not sure how the country of origin or the economics of "good enough" come into
this.

------
epynonymous
can you imagine the ramfications of this getting into the wrong hands?

------
gunnm
Metal detectors obsolete?

~~~
jcomis
not unless they start printing plastic bullets and casings too.

~~~
RyJones
You mean like a tround ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround> ) or
the delrin bullets used for indoors practice?

------
btipling
Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think
the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about
this when you can simply buy a 3D printer and download a CAD file and begin
mass producing an arsenal in secret?

~~~
vy8vWJlco
> " _I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we
> are_ "

The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend
themselves against abuse. I value equality.

The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a
disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and
they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because
people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO,
so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament
creates an opportunity that wasn't there before.

Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your
own.

~~~
dllthomas
_"Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your
own."_

Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?

~~~
vy8vWJlco
No, that part was OK. I just don't want to be included, by assumption, in the
set of people needing protection or those who should be afraid.

Even if the comment merely describes an opinion about me (and others) without
directly putting words into my mouth, that opinion still seems to say that
something is for my "own good." I disagree with the prescription and I would
like to be excluded from the idea.

~~~
dllthomas
In that case I object to your characterization. Someone can have thoughts
about other people without any implication that those people share the same
thoughts. Trying to grandstand about it is either confused or an attempt at
bullshit rhetoric. If you disagree, describe why you disagree (as you did with
the rest of your comment), don't try and tell them what they can and can't
say.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
What characterization?

I am simply asking to not be spoken for, not saying the commentor isn't
entitled to have an opinion. I say clearly above that I _am OK_ with the
comment as a mere opinion (" _No, that part was OK_ " ...).

I'm curious if you read my reply closely before responding, or if you decided
in advance what you wanted to say if I replied to you, because you seemed not
to have received its intended meaning.

To repeat: I am not saying the commentor isn't entitled to an opinion, only
saying that that opinion is wrong from my perspective and for my case since it
is an opinion about me (and I was included by the word "we"). I am also
entitled to my opinion.

On top of that, I also happen to think that my opinions about what is best for
me _should_ matter more in the public's view than what someone else thinks is
best for me. I am not property to be managed, a sheep to be herded, or a child
to be guarded. I am my own person - the horse's mouth, for my part - and I
consider it offensive to be spoken for. Have you ever been told something is
"for your own good"? If so, did you appreciate it?

~~~
dllthomas
The only bit of your post I objected to, discourse-wise, was the phrase:

 _Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your
own._

This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice
_their_ opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group
might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this
characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking _about_ you".

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Sure - while it is an opinion _about_ me (and others), it is _also_
(simultaneously, though not exclusively) a recommendation (perhaps only an
implied one) about what is in my best interests, when _I_ alone can decide if
I am safe, for example (it is not a lamp, or a number, it is _my own feeling_
): therefore the commentor is speaking _for_ me. Furthermore, since I define
safety for myself, my assertion that the comment does _not_ reflect my
interests also _makes_ it misrepresentation (in addition to speaking _for_ me)
in my case.

~~~
dllthomas
Hm, I wouldn't call safety a feeling at all.

I'll stipulate it and give some more thought to your position in that context.
It definitely colors things a bit; I'm not sure whether it legitimately
changes things.

On the flip-side, would you feel differently if the attribute being discussed
was clearly not a feeling?

"I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the shorter we
are", or some such.

------
lispm
How about 3d-printing something actually useful? Something which mankind
actually really needs. Something which helps creating energy, making clean
water, ...?

Cool, you can print guns. Next you can print bombs and all kinds of weapons.

How about using a new technology for something useful?

Sure you can make a statement by 3d printing a weapon. But with a little brain
one should actually understand that there are a few other things which would
be much more helpful. Just 'because you can' is fine. But this has been
demonstrated already. Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that
they have a brain.

~~~
stcredzero
_> Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain._

Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious
idiots. How is this any better than any other form of prejudgement or
"othering" based on any other political stance? Answer: it's not.

"Othering" based on a political stance is slow poison to a democratic
government. What Ben Franklin said about hanging together is just as true
today. If you have ever complained about a media outlet like Fox News engaging
in this behavior, then guess what: you just did it yourself.

~~~
lispm
> Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious
> idiots.

Strawman. You made that up.

There are a lot of guns already and we produce even more. There are hundreds
of millions of guns on this planet.

How about solving actual real problems? Clean water? Renewable energy? Food
for all?

What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of
investing brains into more important problems.

~~~
stcredzero
_> Strawman. You made that up._

Oh, please!

 _> What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of
investing brains into more important problems._

I agree with your sentiment, but what I said about the earlier quoted line is
true and is also true about the above. You may disagree with someone about
public policy, but that doesn't entitle you to call them "brainless." It's
called "civil discourse" for a reason, and I know you don't have to look up
the word "civil."

Have you built a 3D printer? I have. (And not a RepRap derivative either!)
Have you ever developed a your own plans for a device or a sellable useful
object from one? I have. If you have, then you should know that this is not a
"brainless" activity. Even producing a one-shot disposable pistol on one is
far from "brainless."

I also agree with your priority ordering: That was never my issue. (Reread the
above, and reply to my actual position, please!)

