We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, May 14. 2013
Yep, it's looking more and more like Your Future Will Be Manufactured on a 3-D Printer.
As you might expect, until things get sorted out, the State Department Orders Firm to Remove 3D-Printed Guns Web Blueprints.
After all, this could be a pretty big deal if you understood How 3D-Printed Guns Violate International Arms Controls.
Because, as everyone knows, anyone who opposes any aspect of guns is a dirty, rotten, scumdog liberal.
Because, as everyone knows, what the Second Amendment is really saying is that every American has an equal right to kill any other American.
In other words, if I want to post plans on how to produce a dirty nuclear bomb in the comfort of your own kitchen, that's a First Amendment issue??
John in the comments enhanced the point:
Which is how the bloggers are viewing it, as just another gun control issue. But it's clearly not.
As long-time readers of this site know, I'm
1. Would you trust your family's health to a printed plastic gun?
— Common criminals, because the store owner they're trying to rob would just laugh in their face.
So, it's kind of a sticky wicket, isn't it? It appears to boil down to that old confrontation, principle versus practicality. If we assume this is, by far, a bigger boon to airline hijackers than common homeowners, then the right-wing bloggers are standing by the principle that all guns, no matter what the situation, are good.
My question is, is that really what conservatism is all about?
All guns, no matter what the situation, are good.
That's how it is?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Slow news day, uh Doc?
I offer some words from Col Jeff Cooper, taken from his excellent book, The Art of the Rifle:
"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys.
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, because a citizenry armed with rifles cannot be tyrannized."
It's a blog site, not a political news site, silly.
Wonderful article, Doc, like usual. Are you okay? I've been missing you of late.
Yep, fine, and thanks. Just been busy and distracted. But I've got a couple of gems lined up for this week.
That's a wonderful dissertation on rifles.
What the hell's that got to do with the article?
Fun post, doc. Like Rob, I'd seen the video but hadn't really thought much more about it. On the face of things, because it's cheesy and plastic, it doesn't seem very harmful -- until you start thinking about the "non-detectable" part. A .22 bullet, no matter how cheaply housed, is still a bullet.
In other news, Silent Hunter 4 remains an absolute blast. Thanks again for that great intro. I had no idea such a game existed.
My top tonnage for one patrol: 86K!
Outstanding! I gather you gave Liner Lane a spin? Ripe pickin's!
"1. Would you trust your family's health to a printed plastic gun?"
Obviously not, and the question makes a damn good point. If we're not going to be using them (or recreational shooters), then just who is? Bad guys, like you said.
It should also be noted that this isn't what is commonly referred to as a "gun control" issue, because those guns are detectable. A lethal, non-detectable weapon more properly comes under the heading of 'public safety', like your dirty bomb scenario.
I might also add that if a bad guy wants to hijack an airliner, a plastic gun still wouldn't get him into the locked cockpit, but if it was a jihadist suicide mission, blowing out one of the windows at 35,000 feet might be all it takes.
With (or without, to be truthful) your kind permission, I've snipped out part of your comment and included it in the post. I hadn't thought about 'category', but you made a damn good point.
The printable gun does nothing more than level the playing field. It's already legal for anyone not prohibited from owning firearms to make their own guns. Trouble is you need to be be a fairly competent machinist to do so. The printable gun just extends that right to anyone who can afford a 3D plastics printer.
This is a critical issue and the guy up above calls it something for a "slow news day"? Takes all kinds, I guess.
A superb article, Doc, and thanks for the perspective. I saw the firing video last week but hadn't actually thought about who would be using these things. Not pretty when you start thinking it through.
Also, John makes a real good point up above, about this not being the usual "gun control" debate, so you might update the post with that tidbit.
One calculus you touched on but didn't completely capture is who would buy an expensive machine (that costs much more than a gun) to make guns that you could only use once or twice (I'm assuming that since there is no metal barrel)? Only a person or group who only need one or two shots after they got the gun in the place where it isn't supposed to be.
Am I excited about the possibility of a jihadi printing a gun and using it to hijack a 787 and use it as his ticket to meet Allah and the 71 raisins (or is it really virgins?)? - No, but there's not that much you or anybody can do about it short of making sure somehow that 3D printers are never built again. The toothpaste is out of the tube and you can't put it back.
This really changes the way to look at gun free zones. If you can't tell if a person has a gun there better be a good guy with a gun to neutralize him if need be.
Guns on planes, anyone?
Maybe the best airplane security is for everybody to be naked and/or carry a gun.
As far as the printer goes, a true jihadist group would simply kidnap both the printer and the operator and force them to do their bidding.
The only metal is the firing pin, a short section of common nail.
And yes, you're correct, it was originally "raisins", but one little typo in the 1603 update and here we are.
Well, somebody with an entrepreneurial spirit could invest in the printer, set up shop in some crime-infested urban zone, and maybe sell enough of them recoup cost & make a profit. You could sell them to criminals, the criminally minded, and honest citizens who just want a little cheap backup gun.
I don't think there would be much of a market for these with the criminal types, though, even somebody just looking for a gun to stick up a convenience store. They don't look tough and intimidating enough. You stick up a c-store, you want the clerk to be immediately afraid, get the cash, get out. A dorky plastic pistol would draw attention to itself in the wrong way - "is that a toy?"
Probably sell more of them to poorer honest citizens who want at least something to protect themselves with.
This isn't a conservative issue, it's a libertarian one. This is a process, instructions for baking a cake. And the question is does the government have the right to declare the dissemination of information that it doesn't like illegal? If the knowledge of how to implement a technology that is over a thousand years old is verboten, what else are they allowed to ban?
Guns are terrifying when used by people in unsafe ways but that doesn't mean we should be terrified of every gun or changes in our conception of them.
So, you're arguing that I should be allowed to post plans on how to make a dirty nuclear bomb in the comfort of your own kitchen?
You sure about that?
It doesn't matter if you allow it or not. Someone in some jurisdiction you do not control can and will. These things are not hard, they are just not pursued.
Should the government allow people to do R&D on software? The right code in the wrong hands could do a fantastical amount of damage.
What is more scary; guns that are hard to find or a government that finds and prohibits all things that could be scary?
Oh, wait -- sorry, that's not a dirty bomb. Well, not intentionally anyway.
"Page Not Found"
In other words, you first went there to grab the link, a warming bell went off on the webmaster's computer that someone was trying to access the nuclear kitchen bomb file again, and, worried that some backwater blogger might put the link on his blog site and thus associate him with the right wing, he immediately deleted it.
Other guesses are welcome, of course.
Yes. The instructions for how to make a dirty bomb, atomic bomb, and a hydrogen bomb are already out. The trick is getting the nuclear material and the engineering of the parts.
*shrug*, I made guns as a kid. And at this point there are easier ways to make one shot guns than using a 3-D printer. The only valid argument against printed plastic guns that I can see is that plastic guns are hard to detect. Well, yes, and I expect plastic guns are already available if one knows where to go. Perhaps the solution is that all airline/train passengers should be armed before they are allowed to board.
3-D printers scare people and not just the gun confiscators. Some are luddites and some have monetary or social reasons to fear new technology. I think the "gun" part of this issue is a red herring. The 2nd amendment as intended by the founding fathers would allow us to carry a gun openly or hidden, made by a manufacturer or in our garage, built from steel and wood or made of plastic. I can build an operable gun standing in the aisle of the home depot plumbing department. We need to fight for our civil rights and we need to vote politicians out of office if they threaten our civil rights. We need to fire bureacrats who step over the line and deny us our civil rights. We also need to keep a long memory of who these people are and never allow them to have any power over us again. Fire them, vote them out and never let them back. Be thankfull that since the Sandy Hook disaster so many of these gun grabbing anti-constitution scumbags have stood up and identified themselves for who they are. Now it is our turn to act; vote them out, fire them, make them go to work for a living instead of sucking of the taxpayers.
As noted, this isn't just another "gun control" issue. All of those guns are detectable.
As for your Founding Fathers analogy, it might bear pointing out that plastic hadn't even been invented at the time, and, like things like the Internet and wireless communications, they couldn't even conceive of such a thing and might have addressed the issue specifically if they had. So, one has to be careful putting words in their mouths.
The founding fathers intent regarding the right to keep and carry weapons/arms isn't in doubt they wrote about this extensively. Their belief was certainly not restricted to guns made before 1776 and clearly there was never an intent to create the rediculous limitation you seem to embrace. Do your REALLY think the founding fathers never thought that arms manufacturers might make improvements in weapons??? Do you REALLY think that if they logically did anticipate that arms manufacturers made improvements in weapons that citizens would be denied the right to own them??? I would dearly love to see anyone try to make that arguement in a constitutional debate. I suspect you would be torn to pieces. The founding fathers believed we had the inalianable right to keep and carry weapons BUT they were smart enough to create the 2nd amendment because they knew some people would either not understand inalienable or even understanding it would still try to deny it. So YES we are endowed with the inalienable right to make weapons out of plastic or potatoes if we choose to.
How about posting dirty nuke plans on the Web? "Freedom of speech", right? I mean, are you for those 'inalienable' rights' are not?
I think some are missing the point. This was a proof of concept and a libertarian wanting to get the issue in front of a court.
A plastic gun. First off, this is a .22. Would you want to try and murder someone with a single shot plastic .22? Stick up a store? So some criminals invest $4000 plus for a 3-D printer and print up a bunch of plastic .22's or do they spend their $4000 on a handful of stolen real pistols?
That's if they don't have a strawman purchase (illegal, but what do they care) buy a gun used or retail new, file off numbers and there you go. Plastic guns are no threat except to the anti-gun minded. You can't get around the physics of plastic to get a larger caliber and then who would take the risk with a plastic gun not blowing up in your hand IF someone did come up with larger caliber somehow?
I wouldn't expect a robber to use a printed gun any more than you or I would.
"A suicidal jihadist" is the answer to your other question.
I appreciate your answer Doc, just that I more worry about suicidal jihadi with pipe bombs, a truck bomb at a mall or event, or say rigging a high pressure gasoline or nat gas pipeline to explode and snipe the responders.
There are LOTS of vulnerability in our society and a lot of damage someone COULD do if they didn't care if they lived. We've been fortunate so far. May grace continue to fall upon us here in the US.
I agree, it would be pretty doubtful that your common jihadist would go to such trouble, what with K-Mart having that special on pressure cookers and all.
That's why I used the word "desperately". Somebody with a special mission, like bringing down a jumbo jet over NYC.
A splashy jihadist.
No pun intended.
Before 9-11, hijacking succeeded because the passengers who considered resisting still had something to lose. It was assumed that the passengers would eventually be released after some concessions from some enabler somewhere.
9-11 changed that. Every passenger now knows that their lives are forfeit if hijackers gain control. Only the uttermost cowards will believe that cooperation is a good idea. Everyone else will go down swinging.
Whoever hijacks an airplane now must be prepared to kill every passenger, either as the immediate goal or as something to be done before the real mission can continue. A single-shot gun ain't gonna cut it.
Quite a few years back, Analog SF & Fact magazine published an article how to make a cannon-type nuclear weapon using (mostly) articles in common use or easily available.
First step was a bit hard - steal about 50-100 lbs of enriched uranium. (Ain't that always the way, there's always ONE ingredient you haven't got on hand...)
But after that - pipes and concrete from Home Depot, ceramic kiln, sealed crucibles from scientific equipment stores, some cordite (Dynamite or ANFO in a pinch), a triggering mechanism... There were some tricky issues involved with machining the uranium as I recall, seeing it's rather pyrophoric...
Now, they estimated it wouldn't be a BIG bang, maybe more like a high-yield squib - but it'd be an atomic weapon, built in your home.
One it's known that something can be done, others will do it. Look at NK's nuclear attempts on that.
That was one of my favorite fact articles.
Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood, George W. Harper, April 1979 issue of Analog SF.
Thinking of this, I specifically added the word "dirty", because there's obviously a huge gulf between the two. A dirty bomb would be fairly easy:
1. Steal uranium
2. Tie to great big bomb
3. Set off
Piece o' cake!
You could kill someone with a plastic .22 however it is much cheaper to just make a zip gun. And the local drug dealer could easily get you a loaded .45 for far less than the 8,000.00 dollar plastic printer to make a plastic gun. And a dirty bomb can be done with medical waste and fertilizer/fuel oil. When they finally finish sintered metal printers it will be "interesting" but not illegal. You are allowed to make your own gun. Now, about those laws that outlawed crossbows....
I am not sure what the point of discussing this is. Because we all know there is no way to stop this technology from being spread all over the world. That 3-D gun blueprint is already downloaded hundreds of thousands of times and existing on who knows how many share sites on the internet.
3-D printers are the way of the future. There is no way to eradicate everyone from getting a hold of these gun plans or from creating/experimenting with their own gun plans. Just like anyone could figure out how to make a zip gun. All you need is a ballpoint pen. Isn't this about the same thing?
The only thing that can be done is to outlaw the owning of a 3-D printed gun or a gun made out of those materials...however, as we all know, criminals will not follow this law.
No, I would not trust a current 3-D printed gun around my children or in my house b/c it is not built to last. However, I am sure we are not too far away from the day when you will be able to 3-D print out of any material.
You can't stop this technology.
"I am not sure what the point of discussing this is."
The same thing could be said about 95% of what's on the blogs. It's pretty doubtful anyone at home can just pick up the phone and have whatever wrong that's being discussed be righted.
"You can't stop this technology."
Or any technology. The question is whether or not the law should view this differently because of its unique parameters. It can't be compared to such things as a 'zip gun', because a properly-built printed gun is going to have a 98% chance of firing. And, once the term "non-detectable" enters the picture, it leaves the usual "gun control" issue in the dust. Apples and oranges.
It's not really new, I recall plastic guns from some years back, also ceramic. And I expect you could manufacture a plastic gun with some materials, a drill press, nylon screws, and a lathe. There is nothing special about the printer.
I would think a plastic or ceramic knife might be a better weapon in many circumstances as they aren't one shot devices. I've also noticed people on subways with rings that could double as brass knuckles. There are lots of weapons out there for those who want them.
Well, one way I'd say it's "new" is that all you have to do is hit the 'Print' button. Everything else takes some form of manufacturing or underground purchase. Steal a 3-D printer, though, and you're good to go.
"There are lots of weapons out there for those who want them."
There's an episode on 'NCIS' where Tony is giving Zeva, a trained assassin from Mosad, some lip. She reaches down, picks up a paper clip, looks him dead in the eye and says, "I could kill you sixteen different ways with this paper clip."
So, yeah, Zeva, Tony and I know just what you mean. :)
Doc, I think the print for the gun actually uses a nail for a firing pin and it was done so as to stay legal with the ATF. But regardless of that you still need .22 ammo and they don't make that sans a metal case. So both are detectable if that seems to be the criteria for legal. A zip gun is still easier and cheaper to make. And with firecrackers and pressure cookers.....
We mentioned bullets before and it'd be easy enough to smuggle them aboard in the hand bag. They're just given a cursory scan to see if anything obvious pops out.
This is just the first attempt at making a gun. I am wondering what computer generated guns will be capable of in 10 years as the technology improves? I am also wondering what other lethal weapons 3-D printers can create?
As for controlling the flow of info, who gets to decide Doc?
Anyhow, governments haven't been very successful in controlling the flow of info to this point, I am doubtful they will get better at it unless they pull the plug on the internet.
It is what it is. Welcome to the 21st century.
And at some point technology might take a leap in the non-metalics area and a Kevlar gun barrel introduced. Then a real gun hammer. Then a magazine. Then a-
"As for controlling the flow of info, who gets to decide Doc?"
Well, ultimately, we do. We decide who goes to Congress, and they speak for us. At least, that's what it says in my Citizens Handbook.
"It is what it is."
You old philosopher, you!
First: I guarantee you that Dr. Merc's question will be being repeated in one form or another on a hundred Constitutional Law exam questions this fall, & maybe some Profs even had time to throw it in as an extra-credit question for finals this Spring.
Second: The story isn't the gun, it's the tech. The tech isn't for making guns per se, it's for making whatever you can program it to make. So you're not talking about gun control at all, you're talking about tech control, or more accurately "Cat Herding".
The implications, good & bad, of any tech that makes manufacture radically cheaper and accessible will go way beyond this particular printed pistol. It's basically a Derringer of very limited utility.
What would the Founding Fathers think? I bet they'd focus on the tech more than the pistol. They trusted their citizens with guns and this thing isn't more inherently dangerous than the single shot flintlock pistols of the day; you could even buy them in sizes smaller than this pistol, though they tended to be more expensive.
Show them the cartridge, though - they'd want to know if the tech could make that, which it can't, yet.
You make a good point about the Founding Fathers, but I'd still note that the concept of "flying jumbo jets into towering office buildings" -- and hence the need to detect guns trying to get aboard planes -- was a bit out of their grasp. In their worst case scenario, even if they could foretell the invention of the Gatling gun, one 'trusted' citizen would still only take out a handful of people, not thousands. At that point, I'm sure they'd agree, the rules change.
True - but their answer to our modern tech problems might be quite different than ours.
Problem: Islamic radical highjackers ram Jumbo Jets Bombs into Tall Buildings. Would their first instinct have been to limit the rights of their citizens on account of a threat caused by a palpably external alien ideology?
Their response might have been much more forthright and less - uh - nuanced than ours.
Hum, your little essay sounds to me more like an emotional knee-jerk reaction than a thoughtful observation, Doc.
Chuck's comment above 'bout using a drill press (don't really even need a lathe) instead of CAD & 3D printers is the first thing that crossed my mind
BTW where did you get the information that zip guns had a less than 98% chance of firing?
As I noted above, one big difference here between it and a hand-built gun is that here all you have to do is hit the 'Print' key. Anyone can do it, in other words, not just a machinist.
"BTW where did you get the information that zip guns had a less than 98% chance of firing?"
Anything home-built has less than a firing accuracy of 98%. Setting off a bullet isn't the easiest thing to do, despite Hollywood's depiction otherwise. I guess the point is, even a real gun doesn't have a 100% guarantee the damn bullet will fire. Anything home-built wouldn't even be in the same league.
Home built less than 98% chance of firing?
Need to be a machinist to drill a hole?
Setting off a bullet isn't the easiest thing to do?
I'm sorry Doc, but in my opinion, as long as we're not talking accuracy or safety, your absolutely wrong in all three cases.
Home-built in the sense of zip guns, not finely crafted works of art.
And if it's some fool jihadist who's never seen a screwdriver in his life, then yeah, he'll need a machinist of sorts. All you need for the printed gun is the printer.
As for bullets, are you actually making the claim they go off "easily"?
"As for bullets, are you actually making the claim they go off "easily"?"
Uh yes Doc, I am stating they can be set off (not go off) quite easily. Don't try this at home Doc, don't ever try this Doc, but if you hit a primer (the little silver thingy on the back end of the cartridge) with a hammer it goes BOOM.
By the way, I have has some experience with reloading cartridges, including replacing primers and have fired one or two guns during my 70 something years, from a 155mm gun with a hundred pound projectile down to 22 cal. shorts.
I was talking about hitting them with a rock. Hit them in exactly the right place and boom. But that "exact place" isn't so easy to achieve with just a hacksaw and some nuts and bolts. Hence, printable guns are a boon to those without the skills. Pretty much anybody can hit the 'Print' button.
If you don't like the word "machinist", how about "qualified personnel"?
Reminds me of Ray Bradbury's short story "The Flying Machine" (q.v.)
That's also how 'A Bug's Life' opened. The poor wretch was actually banned from the colony, merely for being innovative. Same old story.
Plastic or metal? Guns, that is. Some people embrace new technology with enthusiasm, others are afraid to leave behind the safety and familiarity of what they already know. I'm looking at YOU, Doc. I think you're just a DOS guy in a Windows 7 world.
I'm puzzled by your reference to me, specifically. All I did was ask a couple of questions at the end, not issue any opinion on the matter. I put spin on the article, of course, but that's looking at it from a viewpoint which may -- or may not -- echo my own personal feelings on the issue.
Personally, I don't think anything will make a shred of difference. I would suggest that the next time it makes the news will be in two years when an airliner goes down with a shot-out window. Or ten airliners at once.
Only in Hollywood movies and in your fevered nightmares would the depressurization of an airplane cabin from a shot-out window cause the plane to crash. In July 2009, for example, a Southwest Airlines B737 lost pressure at 34K feet after a large hole appeared in its fuselage and the plane landed safely without injury to anyone.
You obviously haven't watched the full 'Seconds from Disaster' and 'Mayday' series. 'Nuff said?
All of the "Seconds from Disaster" episodes can be viewed on-line. Tell me which one deals with a plane crash resulting from cabin depressurization caused by, in particular, a busted cabin window and I'll view it. Otherwise, I agree you've said MORE than enough.
While the 'Mayday' listing page includes a number of pressure-related crashes, they have a whole special on it in the #46 episode, "Ripped Apart".
"This special looked at accidents and incidents where pressurization failure or explosive decompression played a part."
And there are other ways to depressurize an airplane than shooting out a window. For that matter, it's doubtful a mere .22-short would go through the two nasty-thick panes of Plexi. A broom handle might work better. :)
I can't find any on-line videos of the specific accidents that were covered in episode #46 of Mayday, but a summary of each one is listed in Wikipedia. In every case, the plane either landed safely after the cabin depressurization or else the final coup de grace was the result of massive disintegration of the plane due to wide spread metal fatigue. In some of the incidents, the flight controls were destroyed as the collateral damage from metal fatigue spread throughout the aircraft. This then became the ultimate cause of the crash. I do not see even one case listed where the loss of cabin pressure alone resulted in a fatal crash. For heavens sake, Aloha Airlines Flight 243 lost the entire roof of its forward passenger section due to metal fatigue and the pilot and first officer still managed to execute a miraculous landing with almost no loss of life (there was one death, that of a flight attendant). One of my acquaintances was aboard that flight and seated in first class. He had stories to tell after that.
Well, the whole thing's never made any sense to me. What does the airflow going over the wings have to do with what's inside?
So, what would be a better example of taking down a plane? I'm picturing five jihadists, each with two print guns, and on a prearranged signal they stand up and put a bullet through the forehead of the tougher-looking guys. As for getting into the cockpit, how about if they go below and disable one of the engines. Then tell the pilot the second one's going unless he opens the door. Turn it off just for a minute, just to bring the message home. Tell them you're Cuban refugees and only want to return your beautiful island nation.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
That's hardly an accurate rendition of the position of anyone cincerned about attacks on gun rights. A remarkable lack of skepticism. I can't imagine an issue more remote from the central issues involved in gun rights than printable plastic guns.
Making dirty bombs an aspect of gun rights? Give me a break.
No offense, but you're acting like this is an article on "gun rights". It's an article on taking a good look at who would use these things before coming out with the typical knee-jerk reaction like the bloggers have.
"Making dirty bombs an aspect of gun rights? Give me a break."
Making dirty bombs an aspect of the First Amendment? Give me a break.
Seems to me that unless you can concoct a ceramic bullet and ceramic case, the metal bullet and case and primer are going to show on the Xray.
Dirty bombs, now, my dog...
Hide it in the travel bag. Unlike people, they're not heavily screened, just a quick lookover for anything obvious.
You're welcome. :)
Bad guys who will somehow get hold of a 3-D printer because they desperately need a gun that evades metal detectors.
Any place that is serious about such security has two channels -- one for the person through the magnetometer, but without bulky clothing so that such lumps of plastic can be seen (and even then they often frisk people) and another for the bags and jackets and shoes that go through either an x-ray observation or a hand search. This gun is gun shaped, and even ABS shows up on such x-rays. The cartridge would be quite visible also.
I know from repeat experience that my "all access" key-chain for my work campus passes through magnetometers just fine without detection. Its total weight is over half a pound., and it consists of a full size aluminum caribiner, a 2" split ring of steel, and a dozen brass keys.
My point is that while there is an iota of novelty here in this 3d printed pistol, the only new thing is that people are upset about it. It was destined to be, and it may well be that others who are better engineers have had equal or better designs for some time.
I don't remember exactly how he did it, but the criminal in Clint Eastwood's "In The Line of Fire" put together a very clever plastic (wood?) gun that disassembled and went through the full-body metal detector with ease. And it was a 2-shot. Really stylin'.
Doc, I haven't read the comments yet, but I gotta tell ya, you're going ad hominem. your bias is coming through, and it sounds just like the very thing you are protesting so strenuously against. You sound like the very thing you oppose.
I'll have more later... or not. Depends on what's going on in my life. But I wanted to let you know what it looks like to me...
If my bias didn't come through, I wouldn't consider it a successful article. This isn't a news site. I'm not here to just present the facts, ma'am. In this case, I think the right-wing bloggers are way off base and figured I'd hit it from a different angle, asking pesky little questions like who is going to use these things. Ideologues tend to shirk from the details.
Hotay. So computers are bad too. People use them to download kiddie porn and snuff videos, right?
And hammers are bad. People kill each other with them.
A firearm is a tool, just like a computer or a hammer. It's the person behind it that might be a problem. You don't blame the tool.
"A firearm is a tool, just like a computer or a hammer."
I think we're done here.
I can't believe that I read this entire comment thread and nobody got the point of why this pistol was made. It wasn't made for bad guys to slip on to airplanes. Honestly I don't think out RIF friends wil be highjacking any more airplanes very soon. They changed the game I think they understand that a highjacking is more likely to end as flight 93 did than World Trade.
This gun was created as an insurance policy. Against the state which has gone rogue. It's like the Liberator pistol in WW2, a gun to get a better gun from the minions of a state that has forgotten "life liberty and the pursuit" and only thinks of it's voracious need to feed it's sycophants. This pistol is to insure that the kind of state that wants to confiscate all guns to make it "safe" can never be certain that somebody, with determination, will if necessary evade the army of thugs and change history. This gun exists to keep the people in power less safe and history has shown all to well that can be a necessary evil.
So, this gun was made to make the thugs in power feel less safe.
Well, that's certainly a fresh approach.
Perhaps the good Dr. has slipped a few meds...
but we built plenty...er, some... zipguns back in the day from readily available, largely non metallic materials. And yes, they were fairly reliable as well. This isn't new.
Frankly, it's much ado @ nothing, and plans for any number of explosives and more have been floating around since before the Anarchist's Cookbook...