Thanks for the vid. I think this started a few year ago, and no-one really believed in this. But that proves the ignorance of people in the progress of technology, and the politics lagging behind.
I think it's good that this kid does this, and make people think about it before the "bad guys" have a 3D printer at home and start producing firearms without any regulation.
Connecting the whole thing with the american school murders in this movie is a bit lame. In america it's just too easy to get a gun, so why would this change anything. In Europe it's different, because of the very strict regulations. But on the other hand, you can't buy ammo without a license here anyway...
At least in Israel it was widely covered by the press. The coverage was of some dudes printing a firearm that managed to fire some rounds before breaking up.
The only printed part in that gun is the lower receiver and mags. All the other parts are from a gun manufacturer. The thing is that you can buy all the other part of a gun in USA without any license except the lower receiver. The lower receiver has to be registered to you and you need a permit for it. But when you print the lower receiver your self and buy the rest of the weapon online you have a non-traceable weapon.
For example in Finland you need to have a permit for all parts of gun that are in touch with the bullet or the casing at some point (barrel, lock and the chamber). I'd like to see them printed at home. Probably wont take too many years. I have seen in real life a 3D printer that prints some metal compound but it is too brittle to handle any excessive forces.
At my work we use 3D printing to make 3D wire flexures out of titanium powder. (wire flexure are metal elastic "hinges" basically). 3D printed metals nowadays have 98% of the strength of the normal material, so there's only the limitation of delamination (cracking in between the 3D printed layers). Using laser sintering this will be solved soon I think, and takes another ~10 years to enter your living room.
But as I said, the possibilities, even today, are underestimated. Printing a durable lower receiver isn't far off.
Dunno, I'm not sure about the possibilities of the guns shown in the video, but the first flight of the Wright brothers was crappy too. I look to these guns in that context. And I just fear that humanity is still in its child steps to have freedom of this kind. IF it is freedom at all. I'm thinking more of the long run, instead of the possibilities in a few years.
(03-30-2013, 08:06 PM)Alwarren link Wrote: [ -> ]Guns don't kill people, but they're a tremendous help... I mean, just yelling "boom boom" doesn't really have the same punch.
I think the idea which that phrase is supposed to convey is that a shooting requires both a shooter and a gun, not simply the gun. The implied point is: subtract all firearms from the planet but do nothing to subtract would-be shooters, and you will still have violence, albeit changed and/or reduced.
That is a good one run. It is kind've refreshing to encounter non-Americans who are not rabid gun-banners.
It is sad and unfortunate that so many modern devices that are so useful for violence exist, but it seems to be a 'cat out of the bag' situation. If somehow every firearm on the entire planet could be made to go *poof* and disappear magically, I tend to think that all it would do is prompt the biggest arms race in human history, and the resulting mayhem would be horrific.
As an NRA member (but non-owner with some experience shooting; I live in Taxachusetts which has some of the most intrusive and restrictive regulations on licensing and ownership, and I haven't even tried to get a permit) I regard the issue pragmatically: You are NOT going to get guns out of the U.S, much less the rest of the world. Efforts to do that are likely to cause more harm than good. Better to focus on more practical means to protect innocents. For example, the Primary School that Obama and many of the other Beltway Aristocrats kids attend has 11 armed guards at it. Ironic I thought that the royalty in the Congress and White House deserve to have their children protected with heavily armed men, but the idea that that might be the best way to prevent Sandy Hook's and Columbines has yet to emerge instead of placing more regulations on the peasant's 2nd Amendment rights.
As an American I regard firearm rights ideologically. One of our nations founding documents specifies the _RIGHT_ of every citizen to bear arms and form into an effective militia. Given that power corrupts no less today than it ever did, I believe that the good reasons the writers of that had for including it in the U.S. Constitution are no less valid today than they ever were. From there it gets a bit more debatable, but I tend to lean toward more firepower available to anyone who has never demonstrated a sign of potential malice.
As a child I thought: Why the hell is there still war? It's so damn simple just to close the weapon factories and you're done! Let them throw rocks against each other!
Now I know the world isn't as simple as you would like it to be, and any weapon regulation is just wasted time.
If people want to do harm, they find a way, regulations or not.
Here in Holland there is a very very very strict regulation, even if its for sport-shooting. It works good, and there's no need to change it. However, I think there would not have been any change if it was like in the US.
The percentage of people getting killed by firearms is very small. If you want to save innocent people, go clear mines in Iraq...
Probably wont take too many years. I have seen in real life a 3D printer that prints some metal compound but it is too brittle to handle any excessive forces.