There are a couple issues with the article that I'd love to address.
While DD was making progress with its 3D-printed gun experiment, the company managed to get a license to become a legal manufacturer and vendor of guns, somewhat muddling the legal status of the 3D-printed gun, a weapon anyone with a 3D-printer could make at home.
There's absolutely no "muddling" here. You can do any amount of gunsmithing you want, at home, and it's legal without a manufacturer's license up to a very specific point. You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble.
Side note: don't make a silencer either. They are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make it, but you do need the license to own it.
The Liberator still has some more testing to go through
It's probably damn close to a 1-shot gun and then replace the barrel. It also won't have rifling so it won't be accurate. The cartridge next to the gun in the picture appears to be a .22 short which is probably the maximum the plastic can handle. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing when a .38 or 9mm cartridge is fired. The plastic won't contain the significant force.
but the lack of requiring a license — and the gun’s lack of a serial number — are unsettling thoughts.
Much like you don't technically need a license to make a gun, you don't need a license to drive a car. Simple guns have been made by machinists for a long, long time. And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time. But cops see guns with serial numbers shaved off all the time.
I understand the threat of plastic guns getting on a plane or through security but you'd still need to get a bullet through as well which wouldn't be so easy.
When it comes to law and guns, don't be wrong. One oops and you're in prison for 10 years.
On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble.
Not in the USA. Here, the "lower receiver" (at least for the AR15, the quintessential semiautomatic rifle most presume for this discussion and what DD is making) is the gun. Uppers you can freely make; lowers you can make in small quantities so long as there is no indication you'll sell them as a business.
[Silencers] are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make
OH YES YOU DO. It's a $200 manufacturing tax per item, background check, Chief LEO signature, and related paperwork before you start making one. This is one of those things that WILL get you 10 years in prison fast.
HN being an international phenomenon, your jurisdiction may vary greatly in both legality and severity of punishment for violations.
I think what he means is that you don't need to be a class 2 SOT to manufacture silencers (as you would to manufacture machine guns, for instance). You still need to fill out a Form 1 and jump through the other hoops, but there's no "license" required beyond the usual tax stamp.
License, tax, label may be strictly different under exacting law but the point is you have to pay and get permission to make one. As phrased, he sounded like you didn't.
I don't have an AR but I assumed that because the cartridge flows from the lower receiver and is chambered in the upper that the upper was what was the ATF definition of a gun. My mistake, I got them backwards. The lower is what needs the background check through an FFL.
I guess I also didn't read the law correctly with respect to a silencer. I figured since it's illegal to possess without the proper paperwork you couldn't make one anyways since one you completed it you were immediately guilty. I didn't realize there is a separate law covering the process of building one but I guess I should've since guns require a manufacturing license.
But the Feds define a rifle as a firearm so does it matter what the NY law defines? Unless they are defining it as something that is much more strict, which, as draconian as the gun laws are in NY, that wouldn't surprise me.
My point was to not make statements about gun laws unless you in fact know the law, and to demonstrate how common wisdom can be very legally wrong.
Wanna make it a serious matter? A "sawed off shotgun" is legal if made one way, and 10 years prison time if made another - identical parts used either way.
Since your comment at the top of this thread is the top-voted, I suggest you please edit it lest the false information land a non-careful reader in jail.
There are some guns for which the upper receiver is the controlled part though. FALs, SCARs, etc consider the upper the controlled part, while the FNC is in the curious position of being sometimes upper, sometimes lower, all depending on where the manufacturer decided to stamp the serial number.
In short, there's no logical reason that the lower is considered the firearm over the upper, except that's what the ATF defined it as... more reasons not to ever assume anything. :-)
> You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble.
This is incorrect, assuming you're in the US and no weird state laws are relevant. In general, it's perfectly legal to make your own guns from scratch. A license is only needed if you plan to manufacture guns for sale.
Feel free to make firearm (federally, state law may be more restrictive) but only without the intent to sell. If you use it for a few years and then sell it, that's fine. If you "use" it for a day before selling it, that won't fly. It is also recommended to add a serial number to the receiver so LEO don't freak out. I believe only firearms manufactured with an intent to sell require serial numbers.
The whole hubbub over 3D printed guns is silly. People have already been legally and safely manufacturing firearms as a hobby for many, many years.
I thought it was the case that you could never sell it, only keep it for personal use. The entry at the ATF FAQ page (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html) is unclear, and I haven't actually gotten around to reading the statute.
Others have chimed in with some corrections, but this one seems to have been missed:
"And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time."
That's not exactly true. It is illegal to remove the serial number from a gun that has one, but it is not required that all guns have serial numbers. Guns manufactured before serial numbers were required of licensed manufacturers obviously don't have them, but also, if you manufacture a gun for yourself, which is perfectly legal, you are not required to manufacture it with a serial number.
In short, you're absolutely right that the removal of a serial is a felony. Also true for the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that has had its serial number removed. It is also true that all guns manufactured by firearms dealers for sale in the US after 1968 are required to be manufactured with a serial number. But simply having a gun without a serial number is not necessarily a felony, depending on whether or not it ever had one or who manufactured it.
My father, who is a gunsmith, finds the hoopla amusing. He sometimes jokes "In my day you didn't have a fancy 3D printer, you had to make a gun out of part of the sink with a rubber band and a nail for the firing pin, you got your sweety to smuggle you in a bullet."
The basics of guns are very very simple. And anyone reasonably facile with hand tools can make them out of off the shelf parts. Things you don't get, a lot of accuracy, or multiple shots, etc.
Ammunition is still pretty hard to do well on your own. Black powder muskets with lead ball shot are no problem, but a reasonable .32 or .45 cal handgun, dicey.
>Ammunition is still pretty hard to do well on your own.
Could you clarify this? Reloading ammo is a very popular past time among many shooting enthusiasts and not difficult at all. You do rely on manufacturers for the powder, of course. You usually buy brass and bullets separately as well. But you can cast your own bullets if you're so inclined and many reloaders use spent brass to reload (making reloaded ammo cheaper than manufactured).
I am talking about constraints on buying the power, brass, and bullets. If you wanted to make all of those things 'off the grid' as it were (like you were equipping a small army) then you show up on the radar just as clearly as you do if you're buying a lot of guns.
For black powder weapons you don't need brass, you can make your own black powder out of raw materials, and lead is pretty easy to get hold of as well.
Black powder cartridges were common stay until ~1890s and some (e.g., .45-70) were very powerful. You also technically don't even need brass: shotgun shells use plastics and (prior to that) used to use cardboard. Shot/slugs/bullets... are all easy to manufacture as well (you just need a mold and lead).
The difficult parts are:
1) Getting the mercury fulminate percussion cap. I doubt this is something that can be easily manufactured. Even if you use a readily bought one (which, I'd imagine, could easily be tracked and/or prohibited by government), it would be quite dangerous to monkey-patch it onto self-manufactured brass.
2) Non-standard brass will not feed reliably from a magazine, even if it will chamber: so any such firearm will be limited to single shot.
3) You'll still be limited to low pressure rounds: I highly doubt a home made action would withstand even a strong black-powder round like a .45-70. I don't imagine this handling anything more powerful than an old .32 S&W or a .410 shot shell. Still dangerous, but not exactly a major caliber.
It wouldn't be hard at all to sneak a few bullets on a plane. Have you flown recently? At many airports they try to force everyone through the body scanners, but if you refuse, you bypass both the body scanner and the metal detector and get a non-invasive patdown that wouldn't be sufficient to find a couple .22 bullets. The harder part would be assembling and loading the thing once you're on the plane without someone noticing.
I don't think it's true that opting out always bypasses the metal detector. I preemptively opt out every time I fly, and I think only once did they take me around the metal detector. I remember it because I was so surprised.
Why would you be on the plane? This is getting it through security.
Get enough of them through security and one can eliminate security.
What happens next is no longer constrained by "what one can get through security."
But to answer your question more directly, an airplane is one of the few places where a zip gun could actually be effective as a firearm. The cockpit door is fortified. Is the galley bulkhead or the wall of the lavatory?
What about that period of time when one of the pilots has to use the lavatory and the 5'2" FA is guarding the front of the plane during egress and ingress? At that point you're relying on human tissue to prevent access to the cockpit.
Perhaps you're thinking of a zip gun as something that shoots rubber bands, but what you'd do is fashion a firing pin out of the smaller cigar holder and plunge it into the larger cigar holder to make the bullet come out the other end, or any variation on those mechanics.
What I'm saying is that this doesn't really matter. Cockpit doors lock now, and waving a gun isn't going to make the pilots open them.
If terrorists just want to shoot somebody, there's no reason for them to bother getting on an airplane.
The most such an attacker could hope to accomplish would be to take someone hostage and negotiate over intercom for the plane to land at a different airport, the way hijackings used to work. This is undesirable, but not a threat of nearly the same magnitude as the 9/11 attacks. It barely even makes the news when it happens.
In any case, the hijacker's game is up the moment they actually shoot anybody, as their zip gun is almost certainly difficult and slow to reload, and they will be trapped in close quarters with scores of angry and frightened passengers. With this in mind, they'll almost certainly have better luck producing realistic looking fake guns. A submachine gun, even a fake one, is more likely to scare passengers into cooperating, and that cooperation is what gives them a chance to succeed.
>"The most such an attacker could hope to accomplish [...]" //
I think you're lacking imagination there.
"If pressure was lost at that altitude, everyone aboard would have been incapacitated almost immediately. Autopsies will tell if they died before the crash or from the impact."
It seems like a rapid/explosive depressurisation event would be possible to create from inside the cabin with an explosive weapon. I'm not saying that's going to down the aircraft but it seems it would create more of an incident than your imagined scenario.
The pilots should have time to don oxygen masks unless pressure is lost very rapidly at very high altitude. I'm doubtful that just shooting the plane is an effective way to accomplish this.
Doesn't have to be a bullet. In the link (which is a small plane) a door/window seal is suspected as the cause of bringing down the plane. But surely if you can compromise a seal or something and cause a rapid decompression that's going to more than likely kill some passengers at ~12km cruising altitude.
Looked at other cites and there was a study on pilots showing that even a 2s delay from decompression to them fitting masks was significant in reduced control.
My point was only to challenge that the very worst you could do was cause a minor panic without affecting the mechanical flight at all or injuring more than maybe 1 or 2 people.
I didn't check but IIRC that Wikipedia article refers only a bullet passing through the fuselage? In which case the hole is too small to cause even rapid decompression.
If these are really one shot then presumably you could make something truly single use that contains the charge and projectile rather than using a bullet. Depends on the use case I suppose.
I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US firearms law) at home for a long time with cnc equipment:
In fact, it's possible to buy an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 and some jigs that will let you finish it on a drill press. 80% is the magic number at which it's no longer considered a firearm. Even with advances in 3D printing I'd much rather shoot a metal firearm than a printed one. I'd also assume that they're using a fairly pricey 3D printer, or doing a lot of finishing work, and not using a stock reprap or the like.
If AK-47s are more interesting, they can be made out of sheet metal.
Also, I'm pretty sure the name is a reference to the FP-45 liberator, which was designed to be used by the resistance during WWII.
UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears.
I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.
There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing.
My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly.
[1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.
Why are people against banning civilian ownership of all guns in principle?
I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my pellet gun.
What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?
Why do you need free speech? If you're not guilty, why are you bothered by police searching your possessions?
History has a couple too many lessons of governments removing the citizens firearms with the result being an increase in violent crime and theft. Many of those cases turn into other civil rights being lost. Also, if you study history of the US, a certain hate group in the southern USA was all for taking guns away from minorities so they could terrorize them.
Also, why add laws to something that is working as violent crimes continues to drop (check the CDC stats)? Why alter something that works?
For specifics home protection is the biggie. Protection against wild and feral animals in rural areas[1]. Sport is a minor part of it.
But, none of those really matter.
1) I really, really hate people who release their no-longer-puppy in rural area and hope it gets picked up by someone kind. They turn feral quickly and kill livestock and horses, and attack children. I have a cousin who is only alive because he had a rifle with him when a pack of 6 attacked him. Animal shelters people.
Shooting guns is fun. For some people, a real rifle, even something like a 22, is going to be more fun than a pellet gun. Trap shooting and sporting clays are also going to be difficult with a pellet gun.
Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea).
Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone lives in a remote area.
Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley won't work in Alaska.
>Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea).
Actually, a starter pistol might be just as good. Unless you've done something to actively piss off the bear, like getting in between a mother and her cubs, the noise of the gunshot is generally enough to stop the bear from charging you. Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.
And I don't think there's that much of a bear spray/gun debate, because it's probably better to have both. At least, that's what I've been told by a friend that goes every year to Yellowstone to fly fish.
> Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.
Wouldn't attempting to kill the bear generally make a noise to scare off the bear too? I could perhaps see a starter pistol being as good as a regular gun for protection against bears, but better?
Also (in my extremely limited experience) starter pistols are not particularly loud compared to regular guns anyway, which makes sense since who wants to wear ear protection at a sporting event?
You preclude the two most common reasons as if they are irrelevant. It's like asking 'Why not ban cars in principle? What's the motive behind owning a car, besides transportation, and status?'
I'll answer your question anyway. Besides concealed carry and hunting; the freedom for civilians to own guns is necessary for the security of a free state. Protection from tyranny and oppression.
While I understand concealed carry for self-defense, if a first world government, especially that of the US, wants to truly be tyrannical, they will. They have nukes, stealth bombers, drones, and god knows what nowadays.
This is the common response. What chance would civilians have against a tank or a modern attack aircraft? What isn't mentioned is the fuel truck supplying that tank. How easily one bad bearing can cause a jet to crash.
There are 1.5million active duty military personnel. 80 million civilian gun owners. That is a non-trivial difference in numbers. I doubt a boomer captain would follow an order to nuke Seattle. Regardless of the situation.
A lot of people don't understand why people would want to be ready for situations without the rule of law, but we've seen that it can happen from a natural disaster just as easily as loss of utilities. In a free society, people should be able to choose to do so, and other's judgements and opinions shouldn't be a justification to stop them.
Quick correction, fully automatic machine guns have effectively been banned for far longer than that. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first stab at gun control, on the heels of Prohibition.
The FP-45 was created to basically be good for one shot. You would use it at close range to incapacitate someone with a better weapon (e.g. an occupying soldier) and take theirs.
Exactly my thought too - surprised that wasn't mentioned.
Also funny in this is that this gun was produced by the OSS (pre CIA) for WWII resistance groups. It was dropped en masse behind enemy lines in hope that they'd find their way to the partisans.
Correct me if I'm wrong: But anything you make with a 3d printer, ignoring super-high-precision work, you can make out of a block of wood and time, correct?
The only real benefit to a 3d printer is it idiot-proofs the task and provides for greater precision. It'll be easier to create 10,000 cheap plastic guns but if you only need 1 because you're in the middle of a Tom Clancy novel then you may as well assemble it from pvc and other store-bought stuff.
3D printed guns will make great fodder for spy novels, but I don't really see them as a threat.
That's not actually true. 3D printers are additive manufacturing, i.e. you build up from nothing. Most hobbyist tools are generally subtractive manufacturing, i.e. you start with a block of raw material and remove sections with the tool. Additive manufacturing allows you to make some parts that are impossible with subtractive manufacturing.
That said, you can make an entire gun using subtractive manufacturing, pretty standard metal, and a CNC mill. If we had a standardized library of CNC mill instructions you could just as easily share that as a STP file for 3D printing a gun.
Pretty much yes. There are some shapes that aren't easily manufactured using traditional methods (enclosed holes, organic shapes) but those won't be needed for a gun.
The fact is, someone with a few days of metal shop training and a lathe and milling machine can make a functional gun. They're not complicated things.
While there are still some shapes you can't make this way, if you extend your manufacturing techniques to involve resin casting you can easily mass-produce complex shapes. That's the motivation fo the Guerilla guide to CNC machining (which is an excellent link, btw):
Even with a 3D printer that's how parts are going to be mass-produced. Yes, 3D printers are awesome for prototyping and small batches, but if you get into any volume casting will be a lot easier.
Scaling up in size, you can sand cast aluminum at home relatively easily, and even do iron if you can build a big enough furnace. That makes it possible to build an engine at home, entirely from scratch (ok - starting with scrap aluminum and some cold rolled steel), bootstrapping what you need. The gingery books explain it all:
The analog of a block of wood and time (or at least a chisel) would be a milling machine (e.g. CNC) since both are subtractive fabrication (you start with a solid pieces and remove material to get the result). 3D printing is additive (you start with nothing and add material to get the result). There are some things that would be possible in one but not the other. For example, creating a fully-enclosed hollow region is only possible in an additive process (though still challenging).
Scott Locklin had a weblog post giving background information on past attempts to use 3D printers to make guns. Note that this was published in August of last year.
I remember back in the days around columbine when zero tolerance became a thing. It was huge news when kids would bring plastic toy guns to school and get expelled.
At least now there's some credible reasons to be afraid of that gun that looks like a toy ;)
Remember that a hammer and a pair of pliers is also a "gun" if you happen to have a bullet. Its dangerous to fire, hard to aim, and has a very low muzzle velocity, but it does meet the criteria.
There have been many prison guns made from a piece of wood with a slot cut in it. That's enough to keep the case from splitting enough of the time on a low powered round to be useful.
The analogous technological situation is with color printers and counterfeiting money. The color printer did not bring about a "counterfeiting revolution" or "distributed currency" or anything like that. Simply manufacturers of the printers have software preventing printing of realistic currency.
When the 3d printing industry reaches some sort of maturity, IF it ever goes mainstream, similar measures will be instituted.
Hell, I haven't read the relevant law but quite possibly he's already in violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Any federal prosecutors keeping up with this story? Ortiz?
Basically all you have here is a privileged middle class kid who enjoys media attention and getting reactions from people.
The idea of software in a printer preventing you from printing counterfeit currency is ridiculous. These things (and similar nonsense in Photoshop et al) have only served to annoy graphic designers.
The only thing "protecting" real money is the many embedded, hard to replicate patterns and markers.
Of course, you can't put the genie back in the bottle with how guns work. You can't write software that will prevent anyone from printing gun parts, as if there was a way for the software to tell intentions from abstract 3D shapes.
> The idea of software in a printer preventing you from printing counterfeit currency is ridiculous.
...but it works well enough. It is embedded in certain graphics program and in (computer-driven) printer/copiers for office use. Not sure about printer drivers, but probably just as well.
However, I can't imagine any similar solution working for 3D print. When one tries to copy bank notes, the `EURion constellation' is there, included by the issuer.
However, when trying to print third-party designed 3D item, if the designer did not bother with including any protective markings, those simply won't be there.
You don't need the exact material for a quality counterfeit bill. I don't think sufficient bill-like materials are any more scarce than the high-grade plastics these guns need, not to mention bullets and gunpowder.
> I don't think sufficient bill-like materials are any more scarce than the high-grade plastics these guns need
Actually, in the past that paper and the presses were hard to get undetectably. This is changing as more and more of the world achieves higher levels of industrial infrastructure.
In 1822, Charles Babbage wrote about a plan to print mathematical tables using a machine. Yet not until 1979, 157 years later, did Epson's competitively priced printer hit homes, establishing a market for such trinkets. The burgeoning realm of computer printers was launched. Today, mass-produced printers flourish, present in nearly every North American home, owing to a visionary mathematician.
In 1984, Charles Hull invented stereo-lithography: the ability to print tangible 3D objects. By 2002, scientists had engineered a functioning kidney, demonstrating the idea of printable organs. In 2008, the first printer capable of printing most of its own parts was created. The year 2012 saw the first 3D-printed prosthetic implant. Printing 3D objects is a technology poised to bloom.
In 1901, Ransom Olds invented the modern assembly line, ushering an era of mass production. His idea allowed manufacturers to make everything from horseless carriages to automatic weapons on an unprecedented scale, but not with free rein. Factory owners, distributors, and stores must abide by certain regulations, including strict gun controls. In a world of mass-produced, manufactured goods, drafting laws that restrict who can buy or produce guns makes sense.
Hardly will it take 157 years for 3D printers to go from hobbyist tinker-toy to standard home appliance. The technology is advancing faster than a speeding bullet. A decade hence will dawn the age of 3D printers, wounding the mass production industry and killing certain government controls.
Once people can print plastic cups and assorted nicknacks from their couch, the proliferation of untraceable guns could be... explosive.
Are you including the cost of buying/leasing the equipment, or just the cost of renting time on someone elses?
I imagine CNC mills are easier to rent time on unless you've got a local hackerspace (which quite possibly will not be keen on printing a gun for you). They would also produce a much more practical product, ...and probably be much more expensive to buy outright.
If instead of a CNC mill you just need the equipment to finish an 80% lower receiver, then you need far less money than either of the other two options, and you get a very practical product for your effort.
That already exists, basically. You could manufacture hard-resin BBs for use in shotgun shells, or even hard-plastic discs for use in something like a Taurus Judge right now.
Manufacturing bullet tips wouldn't be any strange feat either, though you'd almost certainly find them less effective than metal bullet tips.
The real trick would be in printing gunpowder, which I'm sure is a somewhat tangential field of research.
They couldn't believe this had happened. Not because they couldn't imagine it... even though it took some great amount of imagination to develop such a cleverly devious plot, but because it has happened now.
The thought of this happening in 2014 was much earlier than many would have predicted. Any average team would have thought this scenario to be a reality in the much more distopian cyber-punk fantasy of 2020... but 2014.
It's still amazing that the device didn't raise red flags. The fact that she was able to get it through security is surprising and understandable at the same time.
There was no way the average security agent would have any clue what he was looking at, but even then, her demonstration would fool even the most skeptical security officer.
Witnesses and video show how her demonstration of the device marvelled all that saw it. While painted nicely, looking sleek and high tech - it's output seemed innocent enough. The device is an engineering masterpiece. Hard to believe that this much thought and innovation went into a plot so vile and base.
It's unclear if this is the only device - but given the age we live in, surely the plans are already in the hands of every major organized crime group on the planet... At least that is how we should operate.
The demonstration, using the touch screen on the side of the device to select from a vast list of printable toys and do-dads was impressive. The speed with which it output the objects was unreal. The quality unmatched.
Nobody would have suspected what was to happen next. She got into the conference, past both the physical and electronic scrutiny and quelled any suspicion of her intent.
What exactly happened next is still be investigated, but as best as we know, she was able to take the device into the storage room, complete her print and return to the conference floor to carry out the assassination. The gun printed was a marvel. A multi-shot, 100% printed mini rail-gun. The full body printed from the very machine that would then provide its power and ammunition.
At first, there was so much confusion, the rail-gun was relatively silent, and even though the PM was shot in front of nearly a thousand spectators, the deadly near-silence of the railgun prevented immediate involuntary reactions the crowed would have to any other gun.
This was different, a new era, one of those events where you know the world has changed and will never go back.
The device's ability to print out a fully working, multi-shot railgun in a matter of minutes and for that weapon to then be able to be used within minutes of being produced to assassinate one of the most prominent leaders in the world amidst the most advanced security governments can provide is truly a game changing event.
The assassin, while an unassuming, yet beautiful woman in her early 30s is believed to come from the Balkans. A region with a long history of controversial relations with Russia. While plots against Putin may have been considered in the past - it was not thought that there would actually be any credible threat coming from this region, and certainly never any threat as technologically advanced or innovative as this successful plot against him.
It's only been hours now since Putin was assassinated - but the repurcussions from this event will be massive, swift and likely extreme.
3D printing of conventional guns has been hotly debated in the last two years - but this, this is on a whole new level. There are already talks of licensure and control of designs, supplies and media. There is no way to track plastic and no way to regulate it. Governments are in a panic as to how to deal with this now.
While a dramatic presentation of the hysteria over the subject, a key point is overlooked: the problem is not the tools, but minds using them. The drama depicted could be equally depicted with a personal handshake and a pen.
We are far from on-demand instant-printing of effective railguns, and security personnel would be well aware of the possibility. Assassinations have happened for millenia with far less sophistication.
~~~
Recalls a bit of literature...
H.ma: I cannot allow you before Theoden King so armed, Gandalf Greyhame... by order of Grima Wormtongue.
[Gandalf nods, and they hand over their weapons]
H.ma: Your staff.
Gandalf: Oh... you would not part an old man from his walking stick?
[Prolonged discussion ensues]
Gandalf: Be silent! Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth! I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.
[Points his staff at Grima]
Wormtongue: [Terrified] The staff! [To guards] I TOLD YOU TO TAKE THE WIZARD'S STAFF!
And yet, we can't even manufacture a mini rail-gun (or similar) with regular materials that would do more than leave a bruise. Honestly, the old X-Files plot of ceramic weapons making it through security seems more plausible, even post-911. So does using chemical or biological agents to carry out an assassination. You can even send them in the mail!
The interior of a firearm with a firearm control group, firing pin, etc., is kind of detailed. On top of that, to manufacture it with more moldable soft plastic would be very hard because the resultant product wouldn't be substantial enough to withstand the pressures of a bullet's expelled energy.
You might have been able to manufacture some hard-plastic extruded gun in the past, but as with this one, it wouldn't have been great, and it would have cost a lot in the way of equipment. The only real novelty here is that it's doable from home on a relatively inexpensive device.
Heh, what exactly could be technically inferior to the gun pictured? I can't imagine it being good for more than one low powered round, and not even reliable for that.
Also, these people just distribute CAD files for free over the internet. I'm not sure how the country of origin or the economics of "good enough" come into this.
Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about this when you can simply buy a 3D printer and download a CAD file and begin mass producing an arsenal in secret?
I really appreciate what Cody is doing for exactly that misconception.
Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence.
I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.
Uh-huh. Look, within living memory of people I've shared a siddur with at synagogue, a decidedly first-world population attempted to try and stuff my entire people up a crematorium stack.
And people wonder why I'm a life member of the NRA.
I don't see the connection between being anti-banker and the NRA at all - being anti-banker is generally a left-liberal political position, a feeling more at home at Occupy Wall Street. I'm going to assume you didn't bring up "bankers" just because I'm Jewish.
The rest of what you said was equally nonsensical - really, just a slur against gun owners. Do you really think the future leader of an authoritarian, genocidal state apparatus would be anti-government?
Anti-unregulated banking is a left-liberal position. But lack of regulation isn't what I hear when I listen to gun culture complaining about "liberal elites" in Washington and "bankers" on Wall Street. Is that necessarily anti-semitism? No. But you brought up Hitler, not me.
>Do you really think the future leader of an authoritarian, genocidal state apparatus would be anti-government?
That would be the one carried out by the National Socialist Party, yes?
Just because someone told you that the Nazis were "right wing" doesn't mean they have anything in common with the other groups someone told are "right wing". "Right wing" and "left wing" are utterly meaningless except as terms of abuse.
Edit:
What, in specific, does (say) the Libertarian Party have in common with the Nazi Party?
Here in the US, I wish we'd have a "well regulated militia" to the same extent that Switzerland does. All able-bodied men do a bit of military service, and it's a yearly family event for them to go and update their training on their firearm. What we have here in the US seems more like a consumerist culture designed to encourage the buying of products and accessories. It's to the point where the word "militia" is associated with racists and kooks. Not "well-regulated" at all.
> Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
May have something to do with the preponderance of blond-haired blue-eyed people there.
I think there were a number of factors also, including economic and others, but I don't know that hair and eyes were ultimately very big ones - since those didn't seem to help surrounding areas like Austria and the Netherlands. The map of the territories at the end of WWII just amazes me with Switzerland standing out almost like an island:
There was also a report in the mid 80s penned by, among others, former General George S. Patton (who was active during WWII)... "In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker." (PDF page 8, https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://... )
Are the Swiss of French and Italian stock preponderantly "blond-haired blue-eyed"? If not, that argument tends to fail, although I suppose the Nazis did prefer killing Slavs et. al. in the east to Western Europeans. (ADDED: see the above Wikipedia link for how Hitler viewed the German Swiss who preferred their French, Italian and Romansh citizens over the greater German volk.)
"It's to the point where the word "militia" is associated with racists and kooks."
That has a lot more to do with demagogic politicians, including one in particular who had a dicey re-election coming up, than anything real. Amplified of course by a media who see all gun owners as the Other.
"Not "well-regulated" at all."
It's a nice ideal, perhaps, certainly a necessity if you live in a bad neighborhood like the Swiss, but history, going right back to our revolutionary war, tells us it's profoundly not in the American character, with exceptions here and there.
We have a few 'well-regulated' militias in the United States. The Coast Guard, the Army Reserves, and the rest of us.
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45, and women's suffrage has effectively expanded that definition to include women.
We don't have conscripted military service at the moment though.
> We have a few 'well-regulated' militias in the United States. The Coast Guard, the Army Reserves,
When I was growing up, I understood the Coast Guard to be one of the 4 branches of service.
> Army Reserves,
I would allow that the reserves and guards (state and national) would fit a meaningful definition of "well regulated militia."
> and the rest of us.
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45
Uh, yeah. This makes as much sense as defining all left handed people between the ages of 22 and 27 1/2 as "pinch-hitters." A definition doesn't make it so. I could see how this might be seen as a hot-button for politics, but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia, not that militias are necessary for ownership of arms, though I would say that this is true from a practical perspective, as opposed to a rights context.
Ever since Sandy Hook, I've been watching videos and reading articles from all sides of this issue. One thing I've taken away from some pro-gun videos is that there are a lot of dangerously untrained and ignorant gun owners out there. Yes, you read that correctly: from watching pro-gun videos. You can find lots of references to kooky things people say at gun shops and dangerous things people do at such shops and gun ranges. I say again: what we have in the US overall is a consumerist culture. To be fair, there are organizations that do a proper job of creating a culture of respect and knowledge for such weapons, but it seems to me that we don't have enough of this.
Another thing I've discovered is that lots of gun legislation is just as wacky and ill conceived as legislation covering reverse engineering, hacking, and the internet. (SOPA, CISPA, DMCA...) In both cases it's formulated by politicians who don't properly know the subject matter as a response to a demagogic hot-button issue, or at the behest of corporate interests.
To me, "gun_owners = bad" is just as much of a problem as "democrats = socialists".
but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia
Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.
Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.
I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.
A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.
Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.
I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.
I am a bit suspicious about the NRA. I wonder how much they are controlled by arms manufacturer's interests.
I would agree with you that the curtailment of rights is offensive. The recent attempt at weakening Habeas Corpus and various assaults on the Presumption of Innocence come to mind.
I question that as well, but it's also been pretty much debunked. The biggest 'arms manufacturer' donations to the NRA actually come from Midway, which is a retailer, not a manufacturer, and their donations aren't actually from Midway, but donations solicited from users at the end of each sale. If you purchase from Midway, they invite you to donate the 'roundup' to the NRA; if your purchase is $19.50, they'll ask if you want to round it up to an even $20, with the remainder earmarked as an NRA donation.
For the record, I'm not an NRA or NRA-ILA member, though I am a member of the Second Amendment Foundation.
That said, even if we accept that they are in the pockets of arms manufacturers, I don't really see that as being too bad a thing. Arms manufacturers don't have the same degree of exploitative control over their users as, say, telecoms, or software manufacturers.
For the most part, the interests of the manufacturers and gun owners are much more closely aligned than how you find it in the IT arena.
For one, arms manufacturers don't want their name tarnished whenever a nut uses one of their arms to commit mass murder, as well as the headache that inevitably ensues.
That isn't to suggest that they're perfectly aligned of course, but definitely moreso than what we're used to seeing.
> "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are"
The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality.
The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before.
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
No, that part was OK. I just don't want to be included, by assumption, in the set of people needing protection or those who should be afraid.
Even if the comment merely describes an opinion about me (and others) without directly putting words into my mouth, that opinion still seems to say that something is for my "own good." I disagree with the prescription and I would like to be excluded from the idea.
In that case I object to your characterization. Someone can have thoughts about other people without any implication that those people share the same thoughts. Trying to grandstand about it is either confused or an attempt at bullshit rhetoric. If you disagree, describe why you disagree (as you did with the rest of your comment), don't try and tell them what they can and can't say.
I am simply asking to not be spoken for, not saying the commentor isn't entitled to have an opinion. I say clearly above that I am OK with the comment as a mere opinion ("No, that part was OK" ...).
I'm curious if you read my reply closely before responding, or if you decided in advance what you wanted to say if I replied to you, because you seemed not to have received its intended meaning.
To repeat: I am not saying the commentor isn't entitled to an opinion, only saying that that opinion is wrong from my perspective and for my case since it is an opinion about me (and I was included by the word "we"). I am also entitled to my opinion.
On top of that, I also happen to think that my opinions about what is best for me should matter more in the public's view than what someone else thinks is best for me. I am not property to be managed, a sheep to be herded, or a child to be guarded. I am my own person - the horse's mouth, for my part - and I consider it offensive to be spoken for. Have you ever been told something is "for your own good"? If so, did you appreciate it?
The only bit of your post I objected to, discourse-wise, was the phrase:
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice their opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking about you".
Sure - while it is an opinion about me (and others), it is also (simultaneously, though not exclusively) a recommendation (perhaps only an implied one) about what is in my best interests, when I alone can decide if I am safe, for example (it is not a lamp, or a number, it is my own feeling): therefore the commentor is speaking for me. Furthermore, since I define safety for myself, my assertion that the comment does not reflect my interests also makes it misrepresentation (in addition to speaking for me) in my case.
I'll stipulate it and give some more thought to your position in that context. It definitely colors things a bit; I'm not sure whether it legitimately changes things.
On the flip-side, would you feel differently if the attribute being discussed was clearly not a feeling?
"I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the shorter we are", or some such.
Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.
At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them.
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell.
This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals.
Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
My complaint is spurred by how extremely often it seems that anti-regulation sentiments are expressed in forms like "doing x wouldn't do any good" or "doing x wouldn't solve the entire problem", when in fact doing these things well and in good measure might do a large bit of good and nobody sensible is claiming it'd solve the entire problem. These hyperbolic phrases have an effect on the logical bounds of the conversation and encourage binary thinking, easy, satisfying answers, and polarization.
That's only in the presence of proof either way, of which there isn't any.
The 'common sense' legislation that's been proposed may or may not help the problem, but there is no guarantee that either would occur. It's been proven over and again that there's no single bit of legislation that would have prevented the Newtown massacre, except for any legislation that would have prevented anyone in Adam Lanza's sphere of influence from having any firearms or weapons whatsoever. Further, considering the aim of the current crop of legislation is aimed at preventing firearms categorized as 'assault weapons' from sale, which account for a miniscule percentage of crimes, it seems misdirected.
More to the point though, is whether or not firearm legislation does anything for the good. Criminals vastly prefer unarmed victims. Making it such that less of the populace is less armed might sound like a good solution, but has not proven to be.
Kennesaw, GA is an extremely strong counterpoint. In 1981, they enacted a law encouraging every household to own a gun. Between the year the law was passed and the following year, crime had dropped something like 80%. In the 25 years that followed, they were able to celebrate the township's 25th anniversary of being murder free. Perhaps more interestingly than that is that it didn't prevent crime at all, but seems to have displaced it rather effectively. Crime around Kennesaw, GA is higher than crime in Kennesaw, GA, and is even higher than Georgia at large. This suggests, to me at least, that criminals will still be criminals, and crime will still occur, but where criminals know there is an armed populace, they'll seek out greener pastures.
Further, most mass killings occur in "gun free zones". The Aurora, CO theater shooter bypassed a number of closer or larger theaters to seek out one further from his house that specifically banned guns from being held on the premises. We can't ask him, obviously, because he's dead, but this suggests that he sought out the area where he was likely to go longest without being stopped, and also suggests that law-abiding citizens not intent on performing crime, generally obey the law, as there was nobody there armed to stop him.
So, while I don't necessarily begrudge you the complaints you have, that doesn't necessarily indicate that regulation would, in fact, do any good whatsoever, and could actually contribute to the problem.
Another counterpoint, is that one of the least likely demographics to commit any form of crime, but especially armed crimes, are people registered for concealed carry.
>How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
That depends on your definition of lots. The vast majority of gun homicides occur during the commission of another crime. Most gun homicides can be directly related to drug crime.
If you don't have a concealed carry permit, in most states, you're already committing a crime by carrying a concealed loaded gun around with you (there are exceptions--depends on the state).
Do some research, look at the number of concealed carry permit holders convicted of gun related crimes--in most states it's a handful each year.
Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience".
Or alternatively don't be afraid of either (after all, your chance of being significantly harmed by a person with bad intentions is nearly negligible in civilized countries if you don't go actively courting trouble - e.g. by being a violent gang member), but support reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood that a person with bad intentions comes into contact with massive force multipliers.
How about 3d-printing something actually useful? Something which mankind actually really needs. Something which helps creating energy, making clean water, ...?
Cool, you can print guns. Next you can print bombs and all kinds of weapons.
How about using a new technology for something useful?
Sure you can make a statement by 3d printing a weapon. But with a little brain one should actually understand that there are a few other things which would be much more helpful. Just 'because you can' is fine. But this has been demonstrated already. Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain.
> Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain.
Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious idiots. How is this any better than any other form of prejudgement or "othering" based on any other political stance? Answer: it's not.
"Othering" based on a political stance is slow poison to a democratic government. What Ben Franklin said about hanging together is just as true today. If you have ever complained about a media outlet like Fox News engaging in this behavior, then guess what: you just did it yourself.
> What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of investing brains into more important problems.
I agree with your sentiment, but what I said about the earlier quoted line is true and is also true about the above. You may disagree with someone about public policy, but that doesn't entitle you to call them "brainless." It's called "civil discourse" for a reason, and I know you don't have to look up the word "civil."
Have you built a 3D printer? I have. (And not a RepRap derivative either!) Have you ever developed a your own plans for a device or a sellable useful object from one? I have. If you have, then you should know that this is not a "brainless" activity. Even producing a one-shot disposable pistol on one is far from "brainless."
I also agree with your priority ordering: That was never my issue. (Reread the above, and reply to my actual position, please!)
The ability to defend yourself and to be sure of personal and community safety is every bit as important. Living in a free society means that individuals get to live by their own set of priorities.
No, we don't. Warren v. DC states that the police aren't obligated to save you from harm, even if they are able to.
Moreover, the police are very bad at preventing crime, and only about about 20% effective at actually solving crimes that have already occurred.
If you were of enough means, you might've said "I have bodyguards for that" and the statement may have gone without quarrel, but Police, by and large, play cleanup to crimes that have already happened.
This isn't meant to be a slight against the police, as I have great respect for the profession and the hardships of their duties, but even Superman isn't great at preventing crime, because it's a nigh-impossible task... and he's Superman.
I don't know where you live, but in my state only 12% of time the police get to the scene within five minutes for property crime, violent crime is about 30% (based on data from 2008, the most recent collected), that is more than enough time for a person to kill another or for someone to rob a house.
While DD was making progress with its 3D-printed gun experiment, the company managed to get a license to become a legal manufacturer and vendor of guns, somewhat muddling the legal status of the 3D-printed gun, a weapon anyone with a 3D-printer could make at home.
There's absolutely no "muddling" here. You can do any amount of gunsmithing you want, at home, and it's legal without a manufacturer's license up to a very specific point. You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble.
Side note: don't make a silencer either. They are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make it, but you do need the license to own it.
The Liberator still has some more testing to go through
It's probably damn close to a 1-shot gun and then replace the barrel. It also won't have rifling so it won't be accurate. The cartridge next to the gun in the picture appears to be a .22 short which is probably the maximum the plastic can handle. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing when a .38 or 9mm cartridge is fired. The plastic won't contain the significant force.
but the lack of requiring a license — and the gun’s lack of a serial number — are unsettling thoughts.
Much like you don't technically need a license to make a gun, you don't need a license to drive a car. Simple guns have been made by machinists for a long, long time. And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time. But cops see guns with serial numbers shaved off all the time.
I understand the threat of plastic guns getting on a plane or through security but you'd still need to get a bullet through as well which wouldn't be so easy.