Man sells 3D-printed firearms to a buyback program for $21,000
interestingengineering.com
interestingengineering.com
Of course, criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. Gun buybacks have always just been useful for their second order effects -- forgotten guns in attics being stolen, found by kids, etc.
Yes, people take advantage of these events. There's not much of a way to filter participants by intent. People turn in broken or rusty junk that is not of danger anyway. Doing it with a junk plastic gun is not much different than doing the same with junk guns made from other materials. But the bottom line is I don't think anyone ever thought that the results of these events would be 1-for-1 removal of crime guns off the street.
I don't think I would've guessed it but apparently firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US. Score one for auto safety. But regarding "stolen, found by kids, etc." -- there's lots of accidental deaths and injuries from kids finding guns. So I think you're right -- that's exactly the kind of thing buybacks help reduce.
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 40,698
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 45,222
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7
How many suicide deaths would happen with fewer firearms available? I suspect a large portion of the suicide victims may not even be the owner/purchaser of the firearm used. Among all the methods, suicide by firearm is awful because it's so effective. Without an available firearm, attempting suicide by another method might be something that could be recoverable with some intervention after the attempt. Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
If people want to suicide, they'll suicide.
> Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
Attempting to reduce deaths will only increase permanent injuries. That will certainly be a burden on the medical system which comes as an added expense on the willfully living. If people want to kill themselves in the least painful and most effective way they can afford, they shouldn't be prevented. It's tortuous to deny a person the right to dispose of his own life as he sees fit by means of his own property.
So getting rid of the unused gun in the attic for a few hundred or thousand dollars may well be a simple and cheap technique to reduce suicides.
These programs cost money so they should be justified with real evidence. I understand it isn't very much money, and studying it would likely cost orders of magnitude more. There's other costs though, like an erosion of belief in government competence.
Ads of course are free and universally effective, as we all know.
The programs often encourage them to through "no questions asked"/amnesty policies. These programs are a great way to launder a dirty gun, but criminals are hardly likely to turn in a "clean" gun.
That AT4 is a single-shot disposable weapon, cannot be reloaded, and is not reusable.
These people do this for two reasons. First, it's profitable (though that's likely to change as the buyback programs begin to exclude 3D printed guns). Second, it shows that it is incredibly cheap and easy to make firearms and illegal parts. Anyone with a $200 printer can build a safe and reliable semi-automatic handgun. It's even easier to build devices that convert a semi-auto firearm to full auto. Like the war on drugs, the policymakers have lost, they just don't know it yet.
1. https://twitter.com/CobraEconomics/status/155541335225971916...
2. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570191067235946496
I highly doubt that. Maybe if you have most of it out of other parts but a fully printed handgun will fail after just a few shots and it isn't safe in any shape or form. I have 3d prints fall apart on their own if there are issues with the printer or material.
The only way to stop this is to restrict the availability of ammunition, which is feasible in some countries but not America.
As for practicality, what's most practical in most circumstances is what's easiest to acquire.
There's also the Plasma Pump project which apparently is going to eventually become semiauto, fires printed+cast caseless rounds using an electric high voltage igniter (think: arc lighter), and the firearm itself is fully printed.
Even if barrels required as much effort to get as a complete gun, there are already designs that use no gun parts. The FCG-9[5] is the most popular one. It's actually pretty easy to ECM your own barrel at home. Hundreds of people have built guns like these using zero gun parts.[6] They're reliable and accurate enough that they're being used by Burmese rebels.[7]
1. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577447210173751296
2. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577019965458169856
3. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1574237027125559297
4. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1533508555994800128
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9
6. https://twitter.com/WhichJoeSchmoe/status/156254824438707814...
7. https://twitter.com/jake_hanrahan/status/1468966318317531140
Maybe you can print a lower that will sort of work a few times, after you buy professionally machined parts for all of the critical parts of the gun.
People make this statement because it is technically true, but all they're going to accomplish is a push for high-pressure parts to be serialized.
As for machining parts out of metal, people can and do build "slamfire" shotguns out of two pipes and a nail. Needless to say, I think you're overestimating the difficulty of shopping around at Home Depot.
The thing is, criminals aren't hobbyists. They're not going to goof around at the range for 8 hours trying to tune in a mechanism. As long as traditionally produced guns are the price of a 3D printer, (or a busted pickup truck window away), there's really no reason for your local gang member to do an arts and crafts session.
The local gang member doesn't need to learn the specialist skills. He needs to know a guy who knows a guy.
Right, until he doesn't. 3D printing provides additional options that he didn't really have 15 or 20 years ago.
> 3D printed parts are inferior in quality and performance to injection molded.
They just need to be good enough to do the job. Firearms used in crime often get dumped afterward anyway.
And I don’t see any easy solution to straw purchasing on the horizon.
Right, but there are other places besides the US. Those are the places where 3D printing (and home manufacture in general) is a more viable threat to their attempts at gun control.
For instance, the guy who just shot Abe. What he built was more of a hand cannon, because it’s very difficult to make proper cartridge style ammo without factory made precursor components. If your ammo technology is limited to cannon technology, that’s the best you can build anyway.
For now, yes. A year or two from now? I would be entirely unsurprised to see CAD files to 3D print casings designed to be loaded with homemade black powder / arbitrary projectiles and ignited via some external source (e.g. an automotive spark plug).
Even ignoring that possibility, the fact that some guy with a homemade electrically-ignited handcannon killed the leader of a country with some of the strictest gun control laws is itself a nail in gun control's coffin.
You're overstating the requirement; amateurly machined barrels work fine and that'll all you need for an FGC-9. The FGC-9 weldless bolt can be made by a monkey with an angle grinder. The FGC-9 was specifically designed with European regulations in mind. FGC-9's can be built by idiots using common garage tools, built out of commonly available materials. You cannot stop it with any degree of regulation.
You can restrict the availability of suitable ammunition. That will be the ultimate outcome if politicians continue to let guns scare them. It's a largely unfounded fear; there aren't many politicians getting shot with any kind of gun, let alone homemade ones. Even in America where professionally made guns are easy to get, politicians rarely get shot.
> The 3d printer doesn't change anything meaningful about the situation.
This much I agree with. 3d printing has never been the easiest or most effective way of making your own gun. It's a complete meme which caught on because 3d printing captures the imagination in a unique way. Just mentioning 3d printing gets people to suspend critical thought.
Case in point: "3D-Printed Bullets Exist, And They're Terrifyingly Easy To Make" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/3d-printed-bullets_n_3322370
The "3d printed bullet" is a fucking joke, why would anybody shoot a slug of 3d printed plastic instead of.. I don't know, a fucking rock? A fishing weight? Casting their own bullet? It makes no sense, but you get a breathless panicking article from HuffPost about it anyway because ooooooo 3d printing.
I could see a push for treating pressure-bearing parts as firearms, but I don't think it'd fly federally. Also unless you required everyone to serialize their existing barrels (which amounts to registration) it'd be impossible to convict anyone unless you could prove they made the barrel after the law was passed. Then you'd get into questions such as, "What is a barrel?", because at some point you're just banning certain diameter pipes. If someone invents a new caliber, does that mean we have to restrict pipes of that diameter? It quickly gets absurd. And considering the pace at which fabrication technology is improving, I doubt such restrictions would do much in the long run.
1. You can even do push-ups on it: https://twitter.com/DrDeath1776/status/1568280857835610113
It's so obvious that most of the arguments applicable to the War on Drugs or Prohibition apply to guns, but guns are so much more visceral to many that nobody sees it.
And there's so much of that kind of nonsense, like laws focused on whether non-pistols have pistol grips. It's no wonder that gun laws generate a bunch of people who hate gun laws, and it's no wonder that the whole thing is a feedback loop of institutional destruction and delegitimization. Much like laws restricting Abortions were before the Theocrats managed to create a supreme ecumenical council.
What I'm not looking forward to is that the utter lack of legitimacy coupled with the low quality opinions this ecumenical council is creating means that there will eventually be a successful backlash if the nation doesn't implode, and that backlash is going to bring back even more full-throttle versions of these lost and impossible laws at a time when they will be guaranteed to be even less effective than they are now.
thus immigrants, and other groups were not allowed handguns,and the restriction of Short barrel rifles was incurred. it was very important to curtail common carry of easily concealable firearms, by these groups.
the interesting thing about the AR platform is the buffer tube, projecting from the rear of the weapon, its a natural position for a shoulder stock. its possible to do away with this, using a blowback operated caliber like 9mm luger, but these in .223 cal need to have the spring and mass to push onto.
so we get the AR 15 with a short barrel [<16"] leave out the shoulder stock and call it a pistol as its [intended to shoot 1 handed] if it has no other hand grips.
you push that buffer tube, against your shoulder, and its not comfortable but it works as is to shoulder the weapon. next you massage the shoulder stock wrist brace definitions so you end up with a wrist brace that has features making it a comfortable shouldering. over time the AR platform evaded the definition of a short barrel rifle, and the crackdown, is on building pistols with features allowing rifle like usage, but remaining concealable, and easily moved in/out of vehilces.
https://www.wktv.com/news/local/nyag-changes-gun-buyback-rul...
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-gun-buyback/...
If it's to get guns off the street, it seems like you'd explicitly want to get cheap guns that are hard to trace (such as 3D printed guns).
Or is this just turning into a ceremonial thing that we do because it made sense at one time?
It takes guns off the street that criminals actually use?
We'd probably decrease gun crime if we gave criminals garbage like this:
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wktv.com/conten...
The answer is that a Hi-Point is the same price and works way better.
Ok, so the reasoning here is that the price is ~equal, and one is more durable (not necessarily a good thing when you're using something in a crime, but I'm willing to entertain the notion) and effective.
This is, reasonably, fair. But the price of a 3D printer has been trending down for, at least, the past decade (and quality improving).
If the price continues to drop, do you see this being a reasonable thing to continue doing? If so, at what price do you think would be the inflection point?
The advantage of traditional manufacturing techniques is not just durability, it’s that it works at all right out of the box, and criminals care that it’s “real” and intimidating.
For example, meth is pretty difficult/dangerous to make (relative to things the average person makes), but making it for a profit has caused the knowledge to proliferate.
If acceptable printers don't get down to $200, but get down to $400, do you think the ROI gets to the right place? I'm assuming there has to be a market for disposable guns to lower the chances of getting caught (I presume the point would be to melt them down after their use).
I think the best evidence that criminals don’t want 3D printed guns is that they already exist, and criminals aren’t using them.
The advantage of 3D printers is ease of retooling compared to traditional methods. This is why they’re good for prototyping, but not good for mass production. Mass production techniques will always produce better quality/cost balance due to the nature of the processes. The advantage of 3D printing provides no utility to a criminal gun dealer.
In places with strict gun control, the guns crimes that happen still rarely use 3D printed guns. Basic metalworking tools are also inexpensive and are a better fit for the purpose.
i.e. turning away 3D printed derringers is not putting a gun on the streets that is likely to be useful for crime.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, a spokesperson at the Attorney General's Office released the following statement:
“It’s shameful that this individual exploited a program that has successfully taken thousands of guns off the streets to protect our communities from gun violence. We have partnered with local police throughout the state to recover more than 3,500 guns, and one individual’s greedy behavior won’t tarnish our work to promote public safety. We have adjusted our policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.”
So any item that the NY AG gun buyback program will not purchase is thus legally not a gun in NY, right? If it's not worth buying to get it off the streets, they must be fine with it on the streets. This would include 3d printed AR lowers and FGC-9s at least. I think they will not implement this policy's consequences fairly.
it could be said [valid or not] these 3D PMF were manuactured with intent to sell, regardless of business status.
if you manufacture, with intent to sell you have to be an FFL.
the nuance is gun buyback, and how that aligns with intent to sell.
In the context of gun buybacks, there is generally some promise of amnesty that prevents enforcement against these illegal gun manufacturers. If they were pulled over on their way to the gun buyback, they could probably be successfully prosecuted.
1. Spent time, electricity, and filament printing lowers and other components. He's a beginner using a $200 printer so the failure rate was probably pretty high.
2. He drove from NY to Utah
3. He haggled all day before getting paid out for only 42 of his 100 "guns"
And he thinks he's making Utah's buyback program look foolish? This guy wasted a stupendous amount of time and money.
Both filament and electricity are incredibly cheap. His main costs were time, gas, and the risk of being pulled over on his way to the buyback.[2] Instead of printing full frames (which would take longer and use more filament), he printed a bunch of auto sears, which convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full auto. By the ATF's definition, auto sears are considered machine guns, so he got $350 per machine gun. Those auto sears are tiny. I doubt he spent more than a week of printer time on the whole endeavor.
$200 printer, $5 of filament each, 150 prints (high failure rate) 20 hours of printing each, 20*150 = 3000 hours of print time (125 days), 125 days of electricity for a 3d printer running at full capacity (idk but let's call it $500 to be safe), three day's drive to utah $100/night + gas (gasbuddy says ~$400) so total $1000
total: $2450
earnings: $21,000
profit less materials/energy costs: $18,550
hourly wage for working 8 hours a day on this for 125 days: $18.55
doesn't sound like he wasted any time or money, and I assume he worked much more like 2-4 hours a day on it which would mean it payed $37-75/hour.
I don't know how much time or electricity it took, but $21k is a lot of money. I bet his profit after costs was well over $10k. Seems like pretty good money to me.
At least 38% of them are off the streets now, which is all that really matters.
Based on the overwhelming and scientifically-proven (and 4/10 doctor-recommended!) success of this program, it should be implemented everywhere, but at $750-$1,000 per gun, because more == better.
some people are incredibly indigant, eating handmedown food, feeling elated that the days work ends in exchange of 20$ worth of beer cans.
for example a 2x4 profiled to fit an AR upper, and having one [!] hole [!] drilled where the trigger group belongs, is considered a firearm; if you dont drill in to the FCG pocket you have a lower blank [not a firearm yet]
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/6/3/23153532/salt-lake-cit...
In addition, guns have value to people for more than functionality. There's endless stories of people selling "back" their grandpa's WW2 take back piece that would be worth thousands of dollars to the right collector and would be restored and enjoyed for decades, only for a police officer to at best "lose" it in transport or more likely send it to be melted down for scrap so someone could get a $50 gift card and local police can post to Twitter about how another dangerous war relic is off the streets.
NOUN buyback (noun) the buying back of goods by the original seller. the buying back by a company of its own shares. a form of borrowing in which shares or bonds are sold with an agreement to repurchase them at a later date: "a share buy-back" synonyms: retrieve · regain · recover · get back · reclaim · repossess
That's simply "buying".
Your position in this whole sub-thread is very odd.
I've literally parked outside a police station in the past with a sign saying "I buy guns for cash". The PD was paying $50-100; I spent about $500 total and ended up with several nice rifles that were inherited by people who knew didn't want them and had no idea of their value.
To be clear, while I paid much less than retail value for them I showed them price comparisons online while talking to them. Some people decided to keep them, some decided to sell to a dealer later, and some people were happy to get $50 more than the police would have given them.
The highlight of that day was an older lady that had a beautiful Mauser 98k that her husband had brought back after fighting in WW2. She said she needed the money and honestly thought the $100 gift card the police department offered was fair. We exchanged numbers and she ended up selling it to a dealer for $900.
This is the aspect of gun buybacks that really rubs me wrong. They take advantage of ignorant and desperate people by not paying the fair market value of the guns. Old widows regularly get scammed out of thousands of dollars by these cops.
Incidentally, paying fair market value for the guns is also the solution to people trying to sell 3d printed crap. Offer them the pennies a plastic recycler might offer for it.
It is difficult to make good public policies.