Hacker News Reader

Comment by bifrost | Hacker News Reader

IMHO this whole movement is out there to point out how ridiculous some legislation is. Pretty much anyone with a brain can make a deadly weapon with time and materials. They even make guns in prisons, so of course someone could 3d print the serialized parts of a gun. In certain types of guns those 3d printed parts are only minorly structual so they don't receive that much force, you could even conceivably hand carve one out of plastic.

In addition, you could mill your own parts pretty easily, those plans have been available for decades as well.

View on HN

I remember when there was a rumor going around of a guy who took an old shovel and made it into an AK type firearm. Found a link with photos: http://acidcow.com/pics/40255-ak-47-made-out-of-a-shovel-49-...

The AK in particular is an interesting weapon in that the controlled part (legislation around guns deals with the concrete part that "is" the firearm, which is the action that houses nearly all of the other parts) is made out of stamped/bent sheet metal.

The harder part in the case of an AK is the parts kit that has all of the other parts that must be actually machined. Step 0 of making an AK from a shovel is "buy a parts kit made from an entire old, previously functional gun minus the sheet metal and wooden furniture". In terms of making a true firearm from scratch an AK would still be fairly difficult. In terms of making a technical "firearm" (the controlled part), the AK is one of the simplest.

I wouldn't say "anybody with a brain". It still requires a lot of time, motivation, and uncommon resources.

The real question is , should the law take any effort toward minimizing gun ownership by dangerous fruitcakes? If yes, then making it hard to trivially 3d print a gun is kind of necessary, otherwise, like you said, anybody with a brain could do it. Instead of now, where it requires a bit more.

It really doesn't require a lot of time nor resources. A 12 gauge zip gun is literally two steel tubes of the right diameter (can be found in most hardware store), and a tube cap with a hole that can have a bolt screwed in to serve as a firing pin. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

Now, it is single-shot - but because they are so easy and cheap to make, someone who wanted to cause mayhem could just make and preload several dozen, and discard them as they shoot them. Still plenty deadly.

That's the thing, really... guns aren't particularly complicated mechanically to begin with, and they are even less complicated if you strip them down to bare essentials - which, if you only intend to use it at a close range, still leaves them quite functional.

On the other hand, the reason why guns are so simple is because most of the complexity is in the ammo. While that can be reloaded, it requires primers - and those can't easily be made at home.

So, if you want gun control that actually works (in a sense of preventing dangerous people from owning an overly destructive device), it has to be primarily about ammo, not guns.

And with US civilian ammo production above 12 billion rounds per year and increasing, 3 million rimfire (and not increasing due to the higher capital costs for than machinery), plus substantial imports, plus the seconds we are sold from military production, especially at Lake City (ATK has a win-win-win contract where the DoD can outright cancel orders and ATK can then run the materials they've bought through the government's machinery), well, that barn door has been wide open for 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9313_United_States_...

I said time, motivation, and uncommon resources.

As to the "uncommon resources" part- what percent of the people that you know have two steel tubes of the right diameter? I didn't say it was like securing refined plutonium for an A-bomb, but I stand by my statement that those resources are not common possessions.

As to the time part - yes, absolutely, it does. Just because you've got craft skills does not mean they are common. Do most people who own a home defense gun build them themselves using common parts from a hardware store? In fact, I bet that's extremely rare.

I didn't say they were super hard, and I didn't say the resources were super rare. They're not out of reach of any dedicated person who is intent on achieving a goal. But then, a speed bump doesn't force you to drive slower, either. You can sail over them at 90 miles an hour, once. But speed bumps still do their job.

My point is that it's not even hard, much less superhard. Sure, you won't have a couple of pipes of the right size just lying around - but all you need is a measuring tape to get the diameter of a shotgun shell, and then walking into the nearest Ace or Home Depot to get those. So I would argue that they are, effectively, "common possessions", in a sense that it is something that can be obtained with very little time and effort - comparable to grocery shopping.

And it doesn't require any specialized knowledge or skills at all - I couldn't fix my own sink, but I could make a working zip gun.

The reason why you don't see this happening a lot in practice is because it's easier to get a proper gun in US, and it's much more functional. But if you make that harder, you'll have to deal with this workaround suddenly becoming a lot more popular.

Speed bumps are a poor analogy, I think. They work, because their intended effect is localized - you put them where you want to avoid speeding because it's too dangerous. There's no similar locality in gun control.

You can make a knife from a sharpened spoon, but you can do a lot more damage, more reliably, to more people, with a real sword. For now (although not forever) you're not going to 3D print an AR-15 Lower.

It is easier and more economical to mill with a cnc. It is probably far cheaper even to just walk to the gun store and buy a rifle than it is to 3D print something similar.

Not everywhere has gun stores.

A CNC is something that is pitifully easy for a regulatory agency to track, as far as large numbers of purchases go. See: that fellow who was milling AR-15 lowers and just got busted. We're talking about the difference between machining metal, and downloading and printing a schematic. I hope that you do see the difference.

Easier than 3D printers? how so?

I'm saying the exact opposite.

It is easier to track distributing a sold product. It is very difficult to track what a person makes in the comfort of their home. I dont think the federal government keeps a registry for the purchase of milling machines.

If everyone who wants to own (to keep using this one example) an AR-15 had to buy a CNC, that would be quite the commitment. If the current model of people buying many milling machines and selling their services is the only viable way to avoid that, then you've already seen the feds start to take notice. After all, if you can get word of mouth around enough to make money, you're making enough noise to be heard.

3D printing is presumably going to become ubiquitous, and require no skill or experience to operate and maintain.

But that's the thing - with the present level of technology, you can have a device that is, essentially, pre-programmed CNC to make AR lowers (which is what Ghost Gunner is, for example) for under $300.

To make a fully functional firearm from there, you also need a complete upper - can be had for another $400 or so these days; and a complete lower part kit with buffer tube and stock - can be had for less than $100. For a total of $800, some assembly required (or you can pay another $50 and have pretty much any gunsmith put it together for you).

So basically, a person can take GG and produce an unregistered, untraceable, no-background-check-required AR with it for $800-900. For comparison, the Bushmaster AR that was used in Sandy Hook shooting costs ~$700.

The Ghost Gunner drills/machines the right holes in an 80% receiver, it doesn't start with a 0% receiver: http://www.80percentarms.com/products/0-billet-ar-15-lower-r...

But it's not very difficult to start at that level: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cartel-gunsmiths $25K for a pro CNC machine isn't much in the scheme of things.

For a cartel? It's nothing. For most people who want a particular gun, and don't intend to monetize the purchase, never mind the time taken to learn how to work and maintain it? That's a hell of a thing to be honest.

The real barrier is the knowledge, you don't need a relatively new CNC machine like that if you're just going to make a few for yourself. And old but high quality non-CNC machines are sufficient for that, and require a somewhat different set of skills.

But that's not the scenario I'm thinking about, nor is it relevant as of now in a country which has more than doubled its gun production since Obama was elected, with > 100 million being sold in that period (obviously not all those were new).

If the barrier to a decent firearm is knowledge of how to work and maintain and older CNC, that seems like a pretty excellent means of limiting firearms. "You're free to have what you can make from scratch, up to a certain point."

The cost argument is sound, and I'm not disputing it, but rather I'm thinking in the broader terms of the "Gun Control" debate. At some point in the future, maybe a decade, maybe two, supply-side gun control is going to be a pointless exercise. My argument however, is that the time has not yet come, although it's clearly on the horizon.

For now "Just get a CNC mill and learn how to use it" is still a substantial hurdle. I think it's fair to say that it's a hurdle that Adam Lanza wouldn't have managed to overcome.

Gun buybacks are the best gun control method I can think of. supply side is problematic especially in the US, where the amount of owned, unregistered guns is enormous. I think the first step is reducing the supply of used guns. and, it has the side effect that the people who sell guns to government for cheap, likely would sell the gun for cheap to anyone. Might as well be the government, though.

In the US at least, there are three classes of people who are willing to sell guns cheap at a buy back, and this is why the concept has never taken off, along of course with the cost, which isn't effective at buying votes:

Criminals wishing to dispose of weapons used in crime.

Savvy types who sell guns that are worth less.

The ignorant/those who don't want to be bothered to easily dispose of guns that they've inherited or whatever.

The savvy types will work the line to buy guns from the latter that are worth significantly more than the price.

> you're not going to 3D print an AR-15 Lower

this has already been done plenty of times, and i have a sneaking suspicion is far more widespread than anyone is letting on.

meanwhile, you can just buy a hundred 80% lowers off the internet for probably less than a grand, and keep them around just in case.

plenty of "normal" people stockpile this stuff. they just aren't telling anyone about it.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower__...

Literally 10 seconds on Google.

You can start with an 80% lower and a $20 router from Harbor Freight and get something pretty good depending on how you set up a jig. It ain't rocket science.

No it isn't, but look at the instructions on a pack of ketchup some time and bask in the glory of the LCD. "Set up a jig" is alien babble to a huge number of people, for whom, "Press print" would not be.

That's what the internet is for.

Heh... sure. That, and blowing yourself up because the Navy Seal teaching you to make C4 was actually a 14 year old. The internet is a very YMMV experience, often that variance has to do with what you put into it. If the only people who can overcome a law are those smart and resourceful enough to learn how to mill their own guns, yet still criminally inclined, I'd say you've minimized your problem nicely.

Not only can you already print a lower, you can print a bolt-together lower than can be printed on a commercial Makerbot or similar.

Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zpwpmGOvc

and another of it being test-fired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TXz9kb83yc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com