Stratasys repos Wiki Weapon's printer....

[Adam Cohen]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/

[Brent Bublitz]

I'm guessing that this was strictly a move by Stratasys to keep their
name out of this brouhaha.


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Adam Cohen <adam.cohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/
>
> --
>
>
>

[Have Blue]

Which is rather funny, as Stratasys has been an exhibitor at the yearly
SHOT Show (http://www.shotshow.org/) for at least 6 years running, and
they've sold to many firearms manufacturers (and I'm sure never once
asked if the buyer had a type 7 FFL).

[Joe Buck]

yeah, happy Streisand Effect, Stratasys.

>
> --
>
>
>

--

[Pete Prodoehl]

I guess this shows the need for open source 3D printers? ;)

Great quotes from the article:

"“They came for it straight up,” said Cody Wilson."

"Guslick became an online sensation after he made a working rifle by printing a lower receiver and combining it with off-the-shelf metal parts."


Pete

On 10/1/12 3:08 PM, Adam Cohen wrote:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/
--
 
 
 

[Have Blue]

Is RepRap truly an open source printer when they state "the RepRap researchers will work actively to inhibit and to subvert the use of RepRap for weapons production, whether by individuals, companies, or governments."

Seems true open source should not limit the end applications, even if the creators find such applications objectionable.

On the other hand, I can't wait to try using "hey baby, I'm an online sensation" as a pick-up line...

On 10/1/2012 3:18 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote:

I guess this shows the need for open source 3D printers? ;)

Great quotes from the article:

"�They came for it straight up,� said Cody Wilson."

"Guslick became an online sensation after he made a working rifle by printing a lower receiver and combining it with off-the-shelf metal parts."


Pete

On 10/1/12 3:08 PM, Adam Cohen wrote:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/
--
�
�
�

--
�
�
�

[Adam Cohen]

It does present an argument for open source, but it is a controversial one.

[Pete Prodoehl]

Is it controversial?

If open source licenses are about freedom, isn't it similar to free speech?

People who advocate for free speech need to accept that evil people will use it to spread evil ideas too... things they don't agree with, hateful words, and harmful words... but that's part of the freedom thing, right?

Pete

[Joe Buck]

Well, is the RepRap or any other open source printer design published under a specific open source license?  and if so, what does that license say about restricting the end uses.  Seems to me and printer maker operating under an open source license who is also stating restrictions on end uses is probably violating the terms of their license.  This isn't too serious because the remedy is to simply say "ok, we are not operating under that license anymore".  

Still, as much as a printer maker talks about their "opensourciness", they may need to be reminded of what that really means. 

--
 
 
 

[Adam Cohen]

I don't know if freedom of speech applies here. It is simply illegal to do certain things such as own a plastic gun.

[Have Blue]

License and legality are two very different things - recall all the crap we went through years back regarding export of open source crypto.

--
 
 
 

[Tom Gralewicz]

Just to add fule to the fire:-)

How would you feel if your 3D printed gun design was used to shoot a pregnant woman by some thugs looking to steal a few bucks?

http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-news/Pregnant-Milwaukee-Woman-Shot-and-Killed-127275653.html

No, thugs won't be printing their own weapons, but some enterprising sole will and selling to criminals is easy money.

No, I am not against the right to bear arms, I just try to look at any idea from all the angles to understand it.  And this is the question I came up with while wondering around the whole issue.

Like any technology, you can't stop it, you can't even control dispersal of the knowledge (nuclear arms anyone?)

Trying to control the materials or tools doesn't work either.

So its a certainty that someday a pregnant woman will be shot and killed with a 3D printed gun.

And if you think there is no remorse for the people designing and manufacturing something who's primary purpose is killing people because they didn't actually use it, just ask Alfred Nobel.

Tom

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Pete Prodoehl <ras...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
 
 
 

--
Tom Gralewicz
Miller Electronics Recycling
(414) 380-1716
www.deadcomputers.com

[Shane]

I think that there needs to be some clarification of the law. I don't
have it, but I have an example....

It's illegal to carry a crossbow in the state of WI. It is not,
however, illegal to OWN one. Perhaps something like that needs to be
applied to 3D printed plastic guns.

[Have Blue]

The existing laws pertaining to firearms already apply perfectly well to
3D printed ones. I see no reason to further complicate things by
treating firearms made via one manufacturing method differently from
those using another method.

We don't need knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children"
legislation, no matter what the issue.

[Adam Cohen]

I see no reason to further complicate things by
treating firearms made via one manufacturing method differently from
those using another method.

I would argue that the method of manufacture does make a difference when you can make a gun with a few clicks of a mouse. You wouldn't be concerned if the general public could "replicate" guns at will?

 

[Have Blue]

And I've been asked if I would be keeping track of the number of people killed by my 3D printed guns.  Like an automotive engineer who hears of a drunk driving fatality, or an assembly language programmer who finds that his function library has been used in a horribly destructive virus, I'm not about to lose sleep just because someone used my design to cause harm.  I did not create it with that intent in mind, and if we second-guessed everything we did just because someone might use it for bad purposes, we'd hardly progress as a society.

--
 
 
 

[Ron Bean]

>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/

As some commenters noted, you'd get farther with a Harbor Freight lathe
and a mini-mill. It does take some skill, but not that much, especially
if your goal is a one-shot zipgun.

And I'm not convinced that a "proof of concept" will prove much of
anything at this point. (Stratasys might have been better off to just
allow them to fail.)

It does remind me of that article about how most terrorists are
incompetent...
http://boingboing.net/2012/09/17/terrorists-suck.html

[Have Blue]

To be honest, not really.  The general public already has that capability just by visiting the plumbing aisle of their local hardware store.  Even if you could just hit print, you still have to assemble.

To return to the free speech angle, everyone has the ability to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.  Despite this proliferation of free speech technology, people generally don't misuse it.

--
 
 
 

[Ed Hagopian]

That statement is insanely silly on its face. The RepRap Researchers they talk about are the entire planet now. There is simply no stopping technology that is so simple and accessible that anyone, and I mean EVERYONE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB_deAcoC2I&feature=youtube_gdata_player) can use for whatever they want. All you can do is make possession of 3dprinting technology illegal. And like prohibition, you can imagine how well that would work out, or software or music piracy.

[Ed Hagopian]

Licensing, legality, and manufacture and possession regardless of the first two are separate things.

[Ed Hagopian]

There is a difference between the creation of a tool, and the use of the tool. As deadly as that tool is. I myself have no interest in creating any weapons. They serve me no purpose, but invariably people will create them. It's simple inevitability. Nuclear technology has given us benefit, and horror. But there it is none the less.

[Ed Hagopian]

Ron the difference there is skill. It takes skill to use a lathe. It takes zero to hit the print button.

[Have Blue]

In my experience, the printer has been harder to use than the lathe.
Years ago, I machined a new bolt for my paintball gun on a lathe with
nothing more than a parting tool, knowing a bare minimum of operation
(that switch powers it on, that handle moves in X, that handle moves in
Y). Compare years later to getting a professional quality 3D printer.
10 minutes of instruction, hours of reading through a manual, and weeks
of trial, error and experimentation.

For the average Joe, I'd say a lathe easily has the 3D printer beat in
ease-of-use (and you can pick one up at Harbor Freight).

[Adam Cohen]

I guess I would agree with you Ed.  Technology is a sword that cuts both ways.  Can't really hope to stop it, that's a futile exercise. Open source or not, if its possible, its gonna happen eventually.  3d printers don't kill people, people do.

[Ed Hagopian]

Yah, but that's a bolt. Not every working component to make up a functional gun. You of all people know that it's about the reduction of complexity to the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying today, I'm not even saying tomorrow, but sooner, rather than later.

Grandma didn't understand the computer, then she got email... and facebook.... (shudder)

[Ed Hagopian]

Right, but sweet baby zombie Jesus can they burn the CRAP out of your knuckle if your trying to clean the bed while the head is still on.

[Joe Kerman]

Interestingly (and in my opinion, justly) the "Open Source Definition"
by the open source initiative http://opensource.org/docs/osd defines
open source as... well... OPEN source. open,with restrictions. is a
quite difficult sell as open source. Specifically:

---------------------
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.
------------------------

In the case of reprap, the developers are free to do whatever they
want to personally discourage specific uses, for example, refusing to
spend their time working on weapon-manufacturing specific designs. but
they cant restrict them as part of the license and still call
themselves open source in good conscience.

> --
>
>
>

[Have Blue]

If we get to the point where you can actually print a gun (and not just a crappy, illegal zip gun) as simply as hitting a 'print' button, then the technology will have undoubtedly have had a far greater impact than just making firearms more readily accessible.

--
 
 
 

[Ron Bean]

It occurs to me that a 3D printed knife might be potentially more deadly
than a 3D printed gun (assuming some astute design for proper
stiffness).

For example, this guy:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ed_gavagan_a_story_about_knots_and_surgeons.html

[Shane]

I was thinking the same thing, Ron.

> For example, this guy:http://www.ted.com/talks/ed_gavagan_a_story_about_knots_and_surgeons....

[Ed Hagopian]

Yyyyeeeeeeuuuuupp.

[neeboy]

remember that famous scene from Raiderz of the Lost Ark....where the guy whips out the big, nasty-lookin' scimitar, and what does Indy do??? Shoots him without missin' a beat :p

[Ron Bean]

>remember that famous scene from Raiderz of the Lost Ark....where the guy
>whips out the big, nasty-lookin' scimitar, and what does Indy do??? Shoots
>him without missin' a beat :p

He didn't actually attack Indy, though-- just tried to impress him.
Indy had plenty of time.

Someone once proposed an experiment-- a guy with a paintball gun vs a
guy with a magic marker. See who gets a mark on who first. You might be
surprised.

Despite the NRA's efforts, most of us are unarmed, and are not
expecting to be attacked.

[Shane]

Mythbusters actually did that experiment, Ron. It was kinda
surprising how it all turned out.

[ironmonger]

FYI
It is perfectly legal to manufacture the ATF regulated AT lower unit that all the buzz is on about. You need to do it YOURSELF, and you need to mark it with a serial number which you may create as well. I believe that it will be quite a few years before anyone can print a barrel and receiver. Those are legal for citizens to make as well.

Paul
WB9HCO
No trees were killed sending this message, but a tremendous number of electrons were terribly inconvienced...

[ironmonger]

That's AR lower receiver or unit... Curse you, autocorrect!

Paul
WB9HCO
No trees were killed sending this message, but a tremendous number of electrons were terribly inconvienced...

[Ron Bean]

ironmonger <pspe...@gmail.com> writes:

>It is perfectly legal to manufacture the ATF regulated AT lower unit that
>all the buzz is on about.

The current buzz is about these guys, who want to print an all-plastic
gun of some sort: http://defensedistributed.com/

It's not clear to me why they don't want to use any metal parts. It
would certainly increase their chances of success.

[ironmonger]

I guess my point is that it is NOT illegal to make a firearm now, unless it falls into the post 1968 regulated devices. They are welcome to try to print a barrel or receiver. All I ask is that they let me know where the test firing is going to take place so that I can stay outside of the shrapnel radius....

Paul
WB9HCO
No trees were killed sending this message, but a tremendous number of electrons were terribly inconvienced...

--

[Have Blue]

Serial marking is not required on a federal level - my printed AR lower
does not have one.

State laws may differ - I seem to recall that Michigan requires a serial
on all homemade guns.

> --
>
>
>

[Have Blue]

Uh oh - now Pete's 3D printed gun made the news:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/guns-texas/gun-printing-project-catches-eye-of-law-enforcemen/

I guess he got tired of dominating the MAKE: Flickr pool roundups and
decided to branch out :-)

[Michael Warnock]

You're in a ted talk, Have Blue!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv5gBFqzQfY

[Ed Hagopian]

Was rather inevitable. Soon as we get a functional one in any capacity, even if it's just shooting .22 shorts, the major media outlets are going to light it up. Right now it's easy it say, "yah but no one has done it yet so slow your roll baby." but once it's out things are going to get exciting. Expect them to jump on aspects of "massive object piracy", blah mc blah blah, as well. Don't expect logical reasoned arguments either, you don't logically reason those ratings up...