:bowrofl:

i have a range pass at nra. it was free.

This type of news wont leave the city of Salt Lake anytime soon... after all, guns are bad.

yup, i agree... that guy was wrong for even having a gun... he should have done the right thing, and let everyone get stabbed... only criminals carry guns:drool:

lol

I'm going to do it again... link an article I think worth mentioning. About a 5 minute read:

Snell: Waking the dragon

Thegunwire.com

It's an aggregate for prwtty much all gun related articles and videos.

Excellent article, Sam. Props for posting it.

Crazy that democrats want to go back to 1993 levels...

No 3D printed guns for you!

(Unless, of course, you have ever heard of torrents.)

My seed box has been steadily been seeding the plans since they were released.

So I am going to play a little devil's advocate here and raise a question about these plans. Does everyone really think it is a great idea to release plans on the internet that allow someone to print a gun that is essentially undetectable by metal detectors?

I know in one of the articles I read they discussed that the firing pin is suppose to be metal and the creators would place a metal block in the handle if they sold them but I am sure that anyone with even a little creativity could improvise here.

I am not saying that they should be taken down but there are definitely some pretty interesting possibilities with the use of these plans.

Do we really face a grave danger from one-shot only plastic guns that require (at the moment) $1500+ 3D printers? If someone is that motivated to own a weapon like that, is it likely that they couldn't figure out how to get plans on non-legit websites?

I think there are a lot of potential downsides. Skipping over the entire potential ease of access by criminals and evil doers, there is the issue of quality control.

I will be curious to see if there are cases of people losing hands or fingers after using inferior quality base material or printers - if that's even a possibility? I'm not familiar enough with 3D printing to know.

While I would not go as far as saying "we" face "grave danger" from the plans it does only take one bullet to assassinate someone. You also do not need to own the printer in order to have access to it and $1,500 is not an extraordinary amount of money.

I am not claiming that this is a game changing weapon as much as questioning how good of a decision, ethically, it is to encourage wide circulation of free plans of a proven gun that is undetectable by normal procedures. It is not like releasing these plans was a moral imperative. It was more of a "because we can" thing. Now how damaging will it be to the rights of gun owners when some thug buys one from someone manufacturing them and gets it into his high school that uses metal detectors to deter traditional weapons and kills a rival gang member, innocent student, or teacher?

I am not saying these things will happen or that they are necessarily grounds to deny access to these plans. I am just wondering if the people who made these plans really thought about the entire picture before they decided to put these out on the internet.

If you are going to release plans for a printable gun on the internet at least wait until you can produce a gun that would have some practical use for someone other than an assassin.

Kids get regular guns into schools that use metal detectors right now. Why would they bother with a single-use plastic gun?

It was really just one scenario. You also act as if the fact that they can get regular guns into schools with metal detectors now would mean anything to the MSM who would absolutely go ape shit if a plastic gun was used. It is all in how the story can be framed.

Why would they bother with a plastic gun you ask? Because why not? They are in high school and are shooting people for dumb shit. Real logic plays no role here. I bet as a hood weapons dealer I could produce these guns at minimal cost once I got the printer and market them as disposable and untraceable weapons for a hit. Sell that shit like hotcakes.

EDIT: you could either ditch the gun or melt it afterward. Not to mention I doubt they can be traced with normal ballistics tests.

MSM is going to go apeshit over anything weapons related; the existence of plastic guns isn't going to change minds one way or another. Making meaningless gestures like supporting the banning of 3D gun plans does zero to improve the image of gun owners or the NRA.

Playing by the current rules of the game does nothing; trying to appease those who ultimately want ALL weapons (and anything that could conceivably be used as a weapon) banned is a waste of time and resources.


EDIT: This same scenario plays itself out over and over again. Look at the Black Talon "cop-killer bullet" situation -- the gun industry caved on that point rather than lambasting the idiots for their stupid anti-gun arguments. Hell of a lot of good it did us.

I wasn't really suggesting anything like this. I was really trying to address whether releasing these plans was an ethical decision not its legality or future legality. I kind of got off-topic myself.

I guess my main point is should someone really widely distribute plans for a gun that only has practical purpose for assassinations?

It is not like an enthusiast is going to print one of these and take it to the range more than once. It holds one bullet and probably has terrible accuracy from anything over 5 feet.

Again I am not saying people should not be able to own these now that the plans are available. I am questioning the decision of releasing the plans in the first place. What possible good could stem from this decision? It is not like you have released plans that could be used to effectively arm citizen's in the event that the government confiscates all existing guns and shuts down manufacturers. It is a one shot pistol.