Man sells 3D-printed firearms to a buyback program for $21,000(interestingengineering.com)
interestingengineering.com
Man sells 3D-printed firearms to a buyback program for $21,000
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/man-makes-usd21000-by-selling-3d-printed-guns
14 comments
> I don't think anyone ever thought that the results of these events would be 1-for-1 removal of crime guns off the street.
I don't think I would've guessed it but apparently firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US. Score one for auto safety. But regarding "stolen, found by kids, etc." -- there's lots of accidental deaths and injuries from kids finding guns. So I think you're right -- that's exactly the kind of thing buybacks help reduce.
I don't think I would've guessed it but apparently firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US. Score one for auto safety. But regarding "stolen, found by kids, etc." -- there's lots of accidental deaths and injuries from kids finding guns. So I think you're right -- that's exactly the kind of thing buybacks help reduce.
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 40,698
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 45,222
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7
In the US, 60% of firearm deaths are from suicide. There are, on the other hand, ~430 accidental firearm deaths per year. Not saying reducing accidental deaths isn't a good thing, but in terms of efficacy, the dollar spent per reduced death, I feel like there might be better ways other than a buyback program.
Reducing the access to means of suicide greatly reduces the number of suicides. Many suicides are the result of a short term crisis or encouraged by having an easy means todo it.
So getting rid of the unused gun in the attic for a few hundred or thousand dollars may well be a simple and cheap technique to reduce suicides.
So getting rid of the unused gun in the attic for a few hundred or thousand dollars may well be a simple and cheap technique to reduce suicides.
Rates of suicide are higher in places without guns.
I didn’t say the opposite. But reducing the means reduces the numbers of suicides.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
> In the US, 60% of firearm deaths are from suicide.
How many suicide deaths would happen with fewer firearms available? I suspect a large portion of the suicide victims may not even be the owner/purchaser of the firearm used. Among all the methods, suicide by firearm is awful because it's so effective. Without an available firearm, attempting suicide by another method might be something that could be recoverable with some intervention after the attempt. Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
How many suicide deaths would happen with fewer firearms available? I suspect a large portion of the suicide victims may not even be the owner/purchaser of the firearm used. Among all the methods, suicide by firearm is awful because it's so effective. Without an available firearm, attempting suicide by another method might be something that could be recoverable with some intervention after the attempt. Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
South Korea has a much higher suicide rate and virtually no firearms.
[deleted]
That's irrelevant. How do you know it wouldn't be higher if there were more firearms? Too many variables.
Every other suicide method has a higher chance of rendering an individual comatose, disabled, or permanently disfigured. The side effects of a failed first attempt would be an incentive for the pursuit of a successful second.
> Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
Attempting to reduce deaths will only increase permanent injuries. That will certainly be a burden on the medical system which comes as an added expense on the willfully living. If people want to kill themselves in the least painful and most effective way they can afford, they shouldn't be prevented. It's tortuous to deny a person the right to dispose of his own life as he sees fit by means of his own property.
> Seems like a buyback could reduce the opportunity for deaths and injuries due to suicide attempts.
Attempting to reduce deaths will only increase permanent injuries. That will certainly be a burden on the medical system which comes as an added expense on the willfully living. If people want to kill themselves in the least painful and most effective way they can afford, they shouldn't be prevented. It's tortuous to deny a person the right to dispose of his own life as he sees fit by means of his own property.
The US has only very recently started to eclipse other developed nations in suicide rate, and you can probably point to twenty years of war and the 2008 financial collapse as having a significant role to play in this. Maybe social media too. But gun ownership (access to firearms) is not in any way correlated with high per capita suicide rates. For many decades you might have been able to show inverse correlation.
If people want to suicide, they'll suicide.
If people want to suicide, they'll suicide.
Mental health treatment is of course the best way to prevent suicides, but when people are in a suicidal mental state, they're a lot better off if they don't have grandpa's heirloom shotgun lying around.
For anyone curious, 40% of 45,222 is 18,089
The firearm numbers don't distinguish between suicides, accidental deaths, self-defense, and homicides whether intended or negligent.
We also had a lot of lockdowns/work from home/etc in 2020, which prevented a lot of people from driving, probably lowering that driving stat. It would be interesting to get statistics for a non-covid year.
Because of covid some places stopped requiring kids to pass a driver's test to get a license. Some only had to have a parent sign off that their child was a good enough driver. I wouldn't be surprised if that had an impact on the number of accidents.
The reduction in accidents and suicides from gun buyback programs sounds essentially impossible to measure.
These programs cost money so they should be justified with real evidence. I understand it isn't very much money, and studying it would likely cost orders of magnitude more. There's other costs though, like an erosion of belief in government competence.
These programs cost money so they should be justified with real evidence. I understand it isn't very much money, and studying it would likely cost orders of magnitude more. There's other costs though, like an erosion of belief in government competence.
If all it takes for a "forgotten" attic gun to be secured is something to trigger those gun owners to take action on securing them, a simple ad campaign would be a lot cheaper than $500 gift cards.
> a simple ad campaign
Ads of course are free and universally effective, as we all know.
Ads of course are free and universally effective, as we all know.
The gun buyback surely had ads just to get people to even show up, not yet including the staff time of people working the event and the gift cards.
Local news typically covers "community events" like these as a matter of news, rather than advertisement. Whereas PSAs are paid.
I think the point is someone is a lot more likely to take action over $500 than just hearing an add on TV.
Why bother advertising your gun buyback? Just have someone scam you with 3d printed guns and let the free publicity roll on in
I wouldn't expect a $21,000 ad campaign to have much effect either.
A shoulder mounted anti-tank rocket was once turned over at a gun buyback in San Francisco:
https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-gun-buyback-bazooka-guns/...
I think it is probably worth a lot of taxpayer money to get that off the streets.
More broadly, without wading into 2nd amendment arguments and just viewed as a public health issue, it seems possible that fewer guns in the general population equals fewer gun deaths. Whether these buybacks make any dent at all is a different question - one that would likely be easier to answer if political pressure hadn't halted government studies of gun safety
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-...
> I think it is probably worth a lot of taxpayer money to get that off the streets.
That AT4 is a single-shot disposable weapon, cannot be reloaded, and is not reusable.
That AT4 is a single-shot disposable weapon, cannot be reloaded, and is not reusable.
> criminals aren't going to turn in their guns
The programs often encourage them to through "no questions asked"/amnesty policies. These programs are a great way to launder a dirty gun, but criminals are hardly likely to turn in a "clean" gun.
The programs often encourage them to through "no questions asked"/amnesty policies. These programs are a great way to launder a dirty gun, but criminals are hardly likely to turn in a "clean" gun.
Criminals might be dumb, but they're not dumb enough to hand a murder weapon to a cop regardless of what they say.
The first person I know of to do this was at a gun buyback in Houston in August. He printed 63 single shot .22s and got $6,200 for it.[1] He then used that money to buy a bunch of guns for himself and his daughter. The guy who made $21,000 says he was inspired by the reward from the Houston buyback.[2] He drove six hours to Utica, not Utah[3] and along with three other guys, managed to get $45,000 from the Utica Police Department. One of those three bragged about getting $5,000 for a week of printing plastic and $7 worth of screws.[4]
These people do this for two reasons. First, it's profitable (though that's likely to change as the buyback programs begin to exclude 3D printed guns). Second, it shows that it is incredibly cheap and easy to make firearms and illegal parts. Anyone with a $200 printer can build a safe and reliable semi-automatic handgun. It's even easier to build devices that convert a semi-auto firearm to full auto. Like the war on drugs, the policymakers have lost, they just don't know it yet.
1. https://twitter.com/CobraEconomics/status/155541335225971916...
2. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570191067235946496
3. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570173184640520195
4. https://twitter.com/ricky2a3d/status/1570306811588141061
These people do this for two reasons. First, it's profitable (though that's likely to change as the buyback programs begin to exclude 3D printed guns). Second, it shows that it is incredibly cheap and easy to make firearms and illegal parts. Anyone with a $200 printer can build a safe and reliable semi-automatic handgun. It's even easier to build devices that convert a semi-auto firearm to full auto. Like the war on drugs, the policymakers have lost, they just don't know it yet.
1. https://twitter.com/CobraEconomics/status/155541335225971916...
2. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570191067235946496
3. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570173184640520195
4. https://twitter.com/ricky2a3d/status/1570306811588141061
> Anyone with a $200 printer can build a safe and reliable semi-automatic handgun.
Maybe you can print a lower that will sort of work a few times, after you buy professionally machined parts for all of the critical parts of the gun.
People make this statement because it is technically true, but all they're going to accomplish is a push for high-pressure parts to be serialized.
Maybe you can print a lower that will sort of work a few times, after you buy professionally machined parts for all of the critical parts of the gun.
People make this statement because it is technically true, but all they're going to accomplish is a push for high-pressure parts to be serialized.
> professionally machined parts
You're overstating the requirement; amateurly machined barrels work fine and that'll all you need for an FGC-9. The FGC-9 weldless bolt can be made by a monkey with an angle grinder. The FGC-9 was specifically designed with European regulations in mind. FGC-9's can be built by idiots using common garage tools, built out of commonly available materials. You cannot stop it with any degree of regulation.
You can restrict the availability of suitable ammunition. That will be the ultimate outcome if politicians continue to let guns scare them. It's a largely unfounded fear; there aren't many politicians getting shot with any kind of gun, let alone homemade ones. Even in America where professionally made guns are easy to get, politicians rarely get shot.
You're overstating the requirement; amateurly machined barrels work fine and that'll all you need for an FGC-9. The FGC-9 weldless bolt can be made by a monkey with an angle grinder. The FGC-9 was specifically designed with European regulations in mind. FGC-9's can be built by idiots using common garage tools, built out of commonly available materials. You cannot stop it with any degree of regulation.
You can restrict the availability of suitable ammunition. That will be the ultimate outcome if politicians continue to let guns scare them. It's a largely unfounded fear; there aren't many politicians getting shot with any kind of gun, let alone homemade ones. Even in America where professionally made guns are easy to get, politicians rarely get shot.
I am 100% aware of this, but you're no longer talking about a gun made with a $200 3d printer. You're talking about a gun made with common garage tools. Which has always been possible. The 3d printer doesn't change anything meaningful about the situation.
The FGC-9 is substantially printed. But
> The 3d printer doesn't change anything meaningful about the situation.
This much I agree with. 3d printing has never been the easiest or most effective way of making your own gun. It's a complete meme which caught on because 3d printing captures the imagination in a unique way. Just mentioning 3d printing gets people to suspend critical thought.
Case in point: "3D-Printed Bullets Exist, And They're Terrifyingly Easy To Make" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/3d-printed-bullets_n_3322370
The "3d printed bullet" is a fucking joke, why would anybody shoot a slug of 3d printed plastic instead of.. I don't know, a fucking rock? A fishing weight? Casting their own bullet? It makes no sense, but you get a breathless panicking article from HuffPost about it anyway because ooooooo 3d printing.
> The 3d printer doesn't change anything meaningful about the situation.
This much I agree with. 3d printing has never been the easiest or most effective way of making your own gun. It's a complete meme which caught on because 3d printing captures the imagination in a unique way. Just mentioning 3d printing gets people to suspend critical thought.
Case in point: "3D-Printed Bullets Exist, And They're Terrifyingly Easy To Make" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/3d-printed-bullets_n_3322370
The "3d printed bullet" is a fucking joke, why would anybody shoot a slug of 3d printed plastic instead of.. I don't know, a fucking rock? A fishing weight? Casting their own bullet? It makes no sense, but you get a breathless panicking article from HuffPost about it anyway because ooooooo 3d printing.
I have plastic AR lowers that are still working perfectly after thousands of rounds. If you use a monolithic design (built-in buffer tube & pistol grip) and make it out of glass-filled nylon, it's as durable as an aluminum lower.[1]
I could see a push for treating pressure-bearing parts as firearms, but I don't think it'd fly federally. Also unless you required everyone to serialize their existing barrels (which amounts to registration) it'd be impossible to convict anyone unless you could prove they made the barrel after the law was passed. Then you'd get into questions such as, "What is a barrel?", because at some point you're just banning certain diameter pipes. If someone invents a new caliber, does that mean we have to restrict pipes of that diameter? It quickly gets absurd. And considering the pace at which fabrication technology is improving, I doubt such restrictions would do much in the long run.
1. You can even do push-ups on it: https://twitter.com/DrDeath1776/status/1568280857835610113
I could see a push for treating pressure-bearing parts as firearms, but I don't think it'd fly federally. Also unless you required everyone to serialize their existing barrels (which amounts to registration) it'd be impossible to convict anyone unless you could prove they made the barrel after the law was passed. Then you'd get into questions such as, "What is a barrel?", because at some point you're just banning certain diameter pipes. If someone invents a new caliber, does that mean we have to restrict pipes of that diameter? It quickly gets absurd. And considering the pace at which fabrication technology is improving, I doubt such restrictions would do much in the long run.
1. You can even do push-ups on it: https://twitter.com/DrDeath1776/status/1568280857835610113
If you're able to cheaply print firearms, then it doesn't really matter too much if those firearms end up being disposable; if it breaks, just print another one.
As for machining parts out of metal, people can and do build "slamfire" shotguns out of two pipes and a nail. Needless to say, I think you're overestimating the difficulty of shopping around at Home Depot.
As for machining parts out of metal, people can and do build "slamfire" shotguns out of two pipes and a nail. Needless to say, I think you're overestimating the difficulty of shopping around at Home Depot.
I understand the problem space, I've built my own gun parts using both 3d printers and traditional machine tools.
The thing is, criminals aren't hobbyists. They're not going to goof around at the range for 8 hours trying to tune in a mechanism. As long as traditionally produced guns are the price of a 3D printer, (or a busted pickup truck window away), there's really no reason for your local gang member to do an arts and crafts session.
The thing is, criminals aren't hobbyists. They're not going to goof around at the range for 8 hours trying to tune in a mechanism. As long as traditionally produced guns are the price of a 3D printer, (or a busted pickup truck window away), there's really no reason for your local gang member to do an arts and crafts session.
That's not how it works, any more than we make our own cocaine.
The local gang member doesn't need to learn the specialist skills. He needs to know a guy who knows a guy.
The local gang member doesn't need to learn the specialist skills. He needs to know a guy who knows a guy.
The gang member already knows a guy with reliable and cheap professionally made guns. 3D printed parts are inferior in quality and performance to injection molded.
> The gang member already knows a guy with reliable and cheap professionally made guns.
Right, until he doesn't. 3D printing provides additional options that he didn't really have 15 or 20 years ago.
> 3D printed parts are inferior in quality and performance to injection molded.
They just need to be good enough to do the job. Firearms used in crime often get dumped afterward anyway.
Right, until he doesn't. 3D printing provides additional options that he didn't really have 15 or 20 years ago.
> 3D printed parts are inferior in quality and performance to injection molded.
They just need to be good enough to do the job. Firearms used in crime often get dumped afterward anyway.
It won’t change in the US for a very long time. There’s simply too many readily available guns. Criminals in my area simply take a jaunt around the neighborhood at 3am checking for unlocked pickup trucks. It’s in our local news regularly. “Thieve robs a string of neighborhood cars at night, steal cash and a handgun”
And I don’t see any easy solution to straw purchasing on the horizon.
And I don’t see any easy solution to straw purchasing on the horizon.
> It won’t change in the US for a very long time.
Right, but there are other places besides the US. Those are the places where 3D printing (and home manufacture in general) is a more viable threat to their attempts at gun control.
Right, but there are other places besides the US. Those are the places where 3D printing (and home manufacture in general) is a more viable threat to their attempts at gun control.
Agreed. Although I don’t think the 3D printer is much of an advantage in countries with strict gun control. In those places, building the gun is the easy part. The hard part is primer (and to some degree, propellant).
For instance, the guy who just shot Abe. What he built was more of a hand cannon, because it’s very difficult to make proper cartridge style ammo without factory made precursor components. If your ammo technology is limited to cannon technology, that’s the best you can build anyway.
For instance, the guy who just shot Abe. What he built was more of a hand cannon, because it’s very difficult to make proper cartridge style ammo without factory made precursor components. If your ammo technology is limited to cannon technology, that’s the best you can build anyway.
> What he built was more of a hand cannon, because it’s very difficult to make proper cartridge style ammo without factory made precursor components.
For now, yes. A year or two from now? I would be entirely unsurprised to see CAD files to 3D print casings designed to be loaded with homemade black powder / arbitrary projectiles and ignited via some external source (e.g. an automotive spark plug).
Even ignoring that possibility, the fact that some guy with a homemade electrically-ignited handcannon killed the leader of a country with some of the strictest gun control laws is itself a nail in gun control's coffin.
For now, yes. A year or two from now? I would be entirely unsurprised to see CAD files to 3D print casings designed to be loaded with homemade black powder / arbitrary projectiles and ignited via some external source (e.g. an automotive spark plug).
Even ignoring that possibility, the fact that some guy with a homemade electrically-ignited handcannon killed the leader of a country with some of the strictest gun control laws is itself a nail in gun control's coffin.
This is what really bothers me about the gun debate. Stuff like the current mess around reclassifying "pistol" braces is utterly asinine and has more or less zero connection to making anything safer for anyone. But guns are bad so using asinine nonsense to create more felons must be good I guess?
It's so obvious that most of the arguments applicable to the War on Drugs or Prohibition apply to guns, but guns are so much more visceral to many that nobody sees it.
And there's so much of that kind of nonsense, like laws focused on whether non-pistols have pistol grips. It's no wonder that gun laws generate a bunch of people who hate gun laws, and it's no wonder that the whole thing is a feedback loop of institutional destruction and delegitimization. Much like laws restricting Abortions were before the Theocrats managed to create a supreme ecumenical council.
What I'm not looking forward to is that the utter lack of legitimacy coupled with the low quality opinions this ecumenical council is creating means that there will eventually be a successful backlash if the nation doesn't implode, and that backlash is going to bring back even more full-throttle versions of these lost and impossible laws at a time when they will be guaranteed to be even less effective than they are now.
It's so obvious that most of the arguments applicable to the War on Drugs or Prohibition apply to guns, but guns are so much more visceral to many that nobody sees it.
And there's so much of that kind of nonsense, like laws focused on whether non-pistols have pistol grips. It's no wonder that gun laws generate a bunch of people who hate gun laws, and it's no wonder that the whole thing is a feedback loop of institutional destruction and delegitimization. Much like laws restricting Abortions were before the Theocrats managed to create a supreme ecumenical council.
What I'm not looking forward to is that the utter lack of legitimacy coupled with the low quality opinions this ecumenical council is creating means that there will eventually be a successful backlash if the nation doesn't implode, and that backlash is going to bring back even more full-throttle versions of these lost and impossible laws at a time when they will be guaranteed to be even less effective than they are now.
back in the 30s USA viewed a number of socialmovement groups, and ethnic "mafias" as a direct threat to existence, that resulted in the gun control act.
thus immigrants, and other groups were not allowed handguns,and the restriction of Short barrel rifles was incurred. it was very important to curtail common carry of easily concealable firearms, by these groups.
the interesting thing about the AR platform is the buffer tube, projecting from the rear of the weapon, its a natural position for a shoulder stock. its possible to do away with this, using a blowback operated caliber like 9mm luger, but these in .223 cal need to have the spring and mass to push onto.
so we get the AR 15 with a short barrel [<16"] leave out the shoulder stock and call it a pistol as its [intended to shoot 1 handed] if it has no other hand grips.
you push that buffer tube, against your shoulder, and its not comfortable but it works as is to shoulder the weapon. next you massage the shoulder stock wrist brace definitions so you end up with a wrist brace that has features making it a comfortable shouldering. over time the AR platform evaded the definition of a short barrel rifle, and the crackdown, is on building pistols with features allowing rifle like usage, but remaining concealable, and easily moved in/out of vehilces.
thus immigrants, and other groups were not allowed handguns,and the restriction of Short barrel rifles was incurred. it was very important to curtail common carry of easily concealable firearms, by these groups.
the interesting thing about the AR platform is the buffer tube, projecting from the rear of the weapon, its a natural position for a shoulder stock. its possible to do away with this, using a blowback operated caliber like 9mm luger, but these in .223 cal need to have the spring and mass to push onto.
so we get the AR 15 with a short barrel [<16"] leave out the shoulder stock and call it a pistol as its [intended to shoot 1 handed] if it has no other hand grips.
you push that buffer tube, against your shoulder, and its not comfortable but it works as is to shoulder the weapon. next you massage the shoulder stock wrist brace definitions so you end up with a wrist brace that has features making it a comfortable shouldering. over time the AR platform evaded the definition of a short barrel rifle, and the crackdown, is on building pistols with features allowing rifle like usage, but remaining concealable, and easily moved in/out of vehilces.
"Anyone with a $200 printer can build a safe and reliable semi-automatic handgun."
I highly doubt that. Maybe if you have most of it out of other parts but a fully printed handgun will fail after just a few shots and it isn't safe in any shape or form. I have 3d prints fall apart on their own if there are issues with the printer or material.
I highly doubt that. Maybe if you have most of it out of other parts but a fully printed handgun will fail after just a few shots and it isn't safe in any shape or form. I have 3d prints fall apart on their own if there are issues with the printer or material.
In the US, many pressure-bearing components such as barrels are not controlled parts. You print the frame or lower receiver, then use normal parts that are compatible. This has been done for MP5s[1], AKs[2], Glocks[3], and even AR-10s in big calibers like .308.[4]
Even if barrels required as much effort to get as a complete gun, there are already designs that use no gun parts. The FCG-9[5] is the most popular one. It's actually pretty easy to ECM your own barrel at home. Hundreds of people have built guns like these using zero gun parts.[6] They're reliable and accurate enough that they're being used by Burmese rebels.[7]
1. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577447210173751296
2. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577019965458169856
3. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1574237027125559297
4. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1533508555994800128
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9
6. https://twitter.com/WhichJoeSchmoe/status/156254824438707814...
7. https://twitter.com/jake_hanrahan/status/1468966318317531140
Even if barrels required as much effort to get as a complete gun, there are already designs that use no gun parts. The FCG-9[5] is the most popular one. It's actually pretty easy to ECM your own barrel at home. Hundreds of people have built guns like these using zero gun parts.[6] They're reliable and accurate enough that they're being used by Burmese rebels.[7]
1. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577447210173751296
2. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1577019965458169856
3. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1574237027125559297
4. https://twitter.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1533508555994800128
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9
6. https://twitter.com/WhichJoeSchmoe/status/156254824438707814...
7. https://twitter.com/jake_hanrahan/status/1468966318317531140
I don't understand why some gun rights advocates point out that the current regulations make no sense for 3D printed guns. I think they think that this demonstrates that the rules shouldn't exist... but I think the response that they're going to elicit is a push for controls on barrels/slides/uppers/ammo.
Anybody with $50 can build themselves a safe and reliable slamfire shotgun made out of metal. The hardware store employees will even cut the pipe for you. These can be sold to police buyback programs for a huge profit, or simply used as shotguns normally are used.
The only way to stop this is to restrict the availability of ammunition, which is feasible in some countries but not America.
The only way to stop this is to restrict the availability of ammunition, which is feasible in some countries but not America.
Which is itself a major wrinkle in the "just restrict ammo" approach to gun control. DIY projectiles are easy (find some ball bearings or marbles or anything else that'll fit in a barrel), and DIY gunpowder is only slightly less easy (https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Gunpowder). DIY primers are much more difficult - but a spark plug and a power source to spark it, not so much.
This is true, but successfully restricting the availability of professionally manufactured ammunition will prevent people from using homemade semi-automatic or automatic weapons like an FGC-9. And even for a single-shot shotgun, real ammunition is a lot more practical. Not necessary, but definitely more practical.
People in the EU have been constructing their own ammunition (including the now deceased developer of the FGC-9) using inert rounds and nailgun blanks or unregulated blank ammo as a source of primer material and powder.
There's also the Plasma Pump project which apparently is going to eventually become semiauto, fires printed+cast caseless rounds using an electric high voltage igniter (think: arc lighter), and the firearm itself is fully printed.
There's also the Plasma Pump project which apparently is going to eventually become semiauto, fires printed+cast caseless rounds using an electric high voltage igniter (think: arc lighter), and the firearm itself is fully printed.
Sure, at least until designs adapt to the new norm. 3D printed cartridges in electric-powered firearms would sever the dependency on professionally manufactured ammunition (and might even become professionally manufactured ammunition).
As for practicality, what's most practical in most circumstances is what's easiest to acquire.
As for practicality, what's most practical in most circumstances is what's easiest to acquire.
if you really dont care for perfect engineering, a component of a box of matches can replace the powder.
you have to restrict reloading supplies as well; this also is of reduced effectiveness for shotguns, as the ammo is very forgiving of out of spec tolerance, and unrifled barrel can guide a wide variety of objects
Warms my heart to see 3D Printing to be this mature now
https://www.wktv.com/news/local/nyag-changes-gun-buyback-rul...
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-gun-buyback/...
https://www.wktv.com/news/local/nyag-changes-gun-buyback-rul...
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-gun-buyback/...
Which brings to mind a question. What's the point of a gun buyback if they won't accept 3D printed guns?
If it's to get guns off the street, it seems like you'd explicitly want to get cheap guns that are hard to trace (such as 3D printed guns).
Or is this just turning into a ceremonial thing that we do because it made sense at one time?
If it's to get guns off the street, it seems like you'd explicitly want to get cheap guns that are hard to trace (such as 3D printed guns).
Or is this just turning into a ceremonial thing that we do because it made sense at one time?
> What's the point of a gun buyback if they won't accept 3D printed guns?
It takes guns off the street that criminals actually use?
We'd probably decrease gun crime if we gave criminals garbage like this:
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wktv.com/conten...
It takes guns off the street that criminals actually use?
We'd probably decrease gun crime if we gave criminals garbage like this:
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wktv.com/conten...
That’s the official goal, but it’s not necessarily what happens (“while many communities include buybacks in their overall gun violence prevention strategies, most research shows these events are ineffective at reducing homicides and suicides,” https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... ).
I meant that the type of gun is something that criminals use, not that the specific guns being turned in were destined to become criminal's guns.
i.e. turning away 3D printed derringers is not putting a gun on the streets that is likely to be useful for crime.
i.e. turning away 3D printed derringers is not putting a gun on the streets that is likely to be useful for crime.
If somebody stuck one of those garbage guns in your face and demanded your wallet, you'd be wise to comply. It doesn't even need to actually work to be effective at the sort of crime most handguns are used for.
Yes, but they don't. It's cheaper and more convenient for a criminal to get real guns which are better anyway.
Interesting hypothesis. It seems like we're planning on testing it.
What's stopping criminals from printing these today and using them?
The answer is that a Hi-Point is the same price and works way better.
The answer is that a Hi-Point is the same price and works way better.
> Hi-Point is the same price and works way better
Ok, so the reasoning here is that the price is ~equal, and one is more durable (not necessarily a good thing when you're using something in a crime, but I'm willing to entertain the notion) and effective.
This is, reasonably, fair. But the price of a 3D printer has been trending down for, at least, the past decade (and quality improving).
If the price continues to drop, do you see this being a reasonable thing to continue doing? If so, at what price do you think would be the inflection point?
Ok, so the reasoning here is that the price is ~equal, and one is more durable (not necessarily a good thing when you're using something in a crime, but I'm willing to entertain the notion) and effective.
This is, reasonably, fair. But the price of a 3D printer has been trending down for, at least, the past decade (and quality improving).
If the price continues to drop, do you see this being a reasonable thing to continue doing? If so, at what price do you think would be the inflection point?
Maybe when SLS printers get down to $200. And/or when the patience required to build one successfully is less than the patience required to steal one.
The advantage of traditional manufacturing techniques is not just durability, it’s that it works at all right out of the box, and criminals care that it’s “real” and intimidating.
The advantage of traditional manufacturing techniques is not just durability, it’s that it works at all right out of the box, and criminals care that it’s “real” and intimidating.
Does the amount of money you can make creating these things play into it at all?
For example, meth is pretty difficult/dangerous to make (relative to things the average person makes), but making it for a profit has caused the knowledge to proliferate.
If acceptable printers don't get down to $200, but get down to $400, do you think the ROI gets to the right place? I'm assuming there has to be a market for disposable guns to lower the chances of getting caught (I presume the point would be to melt them down after their use).
For example, meth is pretty difficult/dangerous to make (relative to things the average person makes), but making it for a profit has caused the knowledge to proliferate.
If acceptable printers don't get down to $200, but get down to $400, do you think the ROI gets to the right place? I'm assuming there has to be a market for disposable guns to lower the chances of getting caught (I presume the point would be to melt them down after their use).
Yeah, but meth is illegal. Selling a 3D printed gun in the US is more like trying to sell skunk weed in a place where dispensaries are on every corner.
I think the best evidence that criminals don’t want 3D printed guns is that they already exist, and criminals aren’t using them.
The advantage of 3D printers is ease of retooling compared to traditional methods. This is why they’re good for prototyping, but not good for mass production. Mass production techniques will always produce better quality/cost balance due to the nature of the processes. The advantage of 3D printing provides no utility to a criminal gun dealer.
In places with strict gun control, the guns crimes that happen still rarely use 3D printed guns. Basic metalworking tools are also inexpensive and are a better fit for the purpose.
I think the best evidence that criminals don’t want 3D printed guns is that they already exist, and criminals aren’t using them.
The advantage of 3D printers is ease of retooling compared to traditional methods. This is why they’re good for prototyping, but not good for mass production. Mass production techniques will always produce better quality/cost balance due to the nature of the processes. The advantage of 3D printing provides no utility to a criminal gun dealer.
In places with strict gun control, the guns crimes that happen still rarely use 3D printed guns. Basic metalworking tools are also inexpensive and are a better fit for the purpose.
the data, is also of utility. you dont just get guns of the street, you get intelligence regarding traffic, and production.
Why does it warm your heart? Even if you’re pro 2A, why would you want to undermine buy back programs, which even in the least charitable description remove unwanted firearms which could otherwise be stolen or end up in the hands of a child?
Because idiots sell their incredibly valuable inherited antiques, including exceptionally rare legal machine guns, which a) are not used in crime, as a rule, and b) are really cool.
I do not think many people are selling valuable antiques to the government m for pennies on the, and if they are, why do you care?
If you've used the internet archive, you care too.
They absolutely are, and I care because I want them
Indeed, you could probably make good money selling untraceable 3d printed guns to anyone who wants one.
“And it ended with the guy and a lady from the budget office finally coming around with the 42 gift cards and counting them in front of me," said Kem. "$21,000 in $500 gift cards."
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, a spokesperson at the Attorney General's Office released the following statement:
“It’s shameful that this individual exploited a program that has successfully taken thousands of guns off the streets to protect our communities from gun violence. We have partnered with local police throughout the state to recover more than 3,500 guns, and one individual’s greedy behavior won’t tarnish our work to promote public safety. We have adjusted our policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.”
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, a spokesperson at the Attorney General's Office released the following statement:
“It’s shameful that this individual exploited a program that has successfully taken thousands of guns off the streets to protect our communities from gun violence. We have partnered with local police throughout the state to recover more than 3,500 guns, and one individual’s greedy behavior won’t tarnish our work to promote public safety. We have adjusted our policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.”
> We have adjusted our policies to ensure that no one can exploit this program again for personal gain.
So any item that the NY AG gun buyback program will not purchase is thus legally not a gun in NY, right? If it's not worth buying to get it off the streets, they must be fine with it on the streets. This would include 3d printed AR lowers and FGC-9s at least. I think they will not implement this policy's consequences fairly.
So any item that the NY AG gun buyback program will not purchase is thus legally not a gun in NY, right? If it's not worth buying to get it off the streets, they must be fine with it on the streets. This would include 3d printed AR lowers and FGC-9s at least. I think they will not implement this policy's consequences fairly.
No, it does not mean that. Getting away with a loophole a few times and causing the rules to get adjusted to account for a grift does not change the law in general.
"We're holding a gun buyback. But no, not that gun."
Yes? That's how most rules work. They don't define everything precisely, we just agree that stupid behaviour and abuse attempts are worked around. This applies to pretty much everything.
this interesting as private manufacture firearm [PMF] can not be for sale or barter, they are to be for own personal use.
it could be said [valid or not] these 3D PMF were manuactured with intent to sell, regardless of business status.
it could be said [valid or not] these 3D PMF were manuactured with intent to sell, regardless of business status.
It's legal to sell a gun you made yourself, if you didn't make it to sell it. E.g. I make a gun for myself, keep it for long enough to plausibly demonstrate that intent, then later get bored with it and sell it. That's legal. But if I do that a lot, it'll start to seem like I'm making them to sell them and without a license that becomes illegal.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license...
if you manufacture, with intent to sell you have to be an FFL.
the nuance is gun buyback, and how that aligns with intent to sell.
if you manufacture, with intent to sell you have to be an FFL.
the nuance is gun buyback, and how that aligns with intent to sell.
Intent to sell is the key bit there. You can sell a gun you made yourself if you didn't make it with the intent to sell it.
In the context of gun buybacks, there is generally some promise of amnesty that prevents enforcement against these illegal gun manufacturers. If they were pulled over on their way to the gun buyback, they could probably be successfully prosecuted.
In the context of gun buybacks, there is generally some promise of amnesty that prevents enforcement against these illegal gun manufacturers. If they were pulled over on their way to the gun buyback, they could probably be successfully prosecuted.
One of the main selling points of gun buyback programs is no-questions-asked amnesty.
Not really: in that case, no one is dupe. It’s just a kid who is being blatantly churlish and wasting everyone else’s money.
The difference is that this hole was exploited once and since been plugged.
There is no difference, because you don't know how many other guns were 3D printed or milled for this buyback scheme that now won't be traded in. Maybe there will be an increase in ghost guns caused by the policy and its subsequent change.
Typically two kinds of guns will be exchanged in such a program. Guns worth less than the offer, making it a kind of cash-for-clunkers boondoggle, and stolen guns. This guy came up with a third grift. So what?
This has been done before, 3d printing just makes it easier. See the GB-22[0] aka "Gun Buyback 22"
0: https://serbu.com/gb-22-plans/
0: https://serbu.com/gb-22-plans/
Alright, so he...
1. Spent time, electricity, and filament printing lowers and other components. He's a beginner using a $200 printer so the failure rate was probably pretty high.
2. He drove from NY to Utah
3. He haggled all day before getting paid out for only 42 of his 100 "guns"
And he thinks he's making Utah's buyback program look foolish? This guy wasted a stupendous amount of time and money.
1. Spent time, electricity, and filament printing lowers and other components. He's a beginner using a $200 printer so the failure rate was probably pretty high.
2. He drove from NY to Utah
3. He haggled all day before getting paid out for only 42 of his 100 "guns"
And he thinks he's making Utah's buyback program look foolish? This guy wasted a stupendous amount of time and money.
The article is incorrect. He drove to Utica, NY, which took him six hours.[1]
Both filament and electricity are incredibly cheap. His main costs were time, gas, and the risk of being pulled over on his way to the buyback.[2] Instead of printing full frames (which would take longer and use more filament), he printed a bunch of auto sears, which convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full auto. By the ATF's definition, auto sears are considered machine guns, so he got $350 per machine gun. Those auto sears are tiny. I doubt he spent more than a week of printer time on the whole endeavor.
1. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570173184640520195
2. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570175250989715456
Both filament and electricity are incredibly cheap. His main costs were time, gas, and the risk of being pulled over on his way to the buyback.[2] Instead of printing full frames (which would take longer and use more filament), he printed a bunch of auto sears, which convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full auto. By the ATF's definition, auto sears are considered machine guns, so he got $350 per machine gun. Those auto sears are tiny. I doubt he spent more than a week of printer time on the whole endeavor.
1. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570173184640520195
2. https://twitter.com/kem_regik/status/1570175250989715456
Let's napkin that - i've never 3d printed a gun, so I'm deliberately choosing super high estimates:
$200 printer, $5 of filament each, 150 prints (high failure rate) 20 hours of printing each, 20*150 = 3000 hours of print time (125 days), 125 days of electricity for a 3d printer running at full capacity (idk but let's call it $500 to be safe), three day's drive to utah $100/night + gas (gasbuddy says ~$400) so total $1000
total: $2450
earnings: $21,000
profit less materials/energy costs: $18,550
hourly wage for working 8 hours a day on this for 125 days: $18.55
doesn't sound like he wasted any time or money, and I assume he worked much more like 2-4 hours a day on it which would mean it payed $37-75/hour.
$200 printer, $5 of filament each, 150 prints (high failure rate) 20 hours of printing each, 20*150 = 3000 hours of print time (125 days), 125 days of electricity for a 3d printer running at full capacity (idk but let's call it $500 to be safe), three day's drive to utah $100/night + gas (gasbuddy says ~$400) so total $1000
total: $2450
earnings: $21,000
profit less materials/energy costs: $18,550
hourly wage for working 8 hours a day on this for 125 days: $18.55
doesn't sound like he wasted any time or money, and I assume he worked much more like 2-4 hours a day on it which would mean it payed $37-75/hour.
He printed auto sears. Those can't take more than 15 mins apiece. $21k of "machine guns" fit in a quart ziploc bag. Also 10 years in federal prison if you're caught in possession of one.
3D printing is largely "set and forget" too, with occasional monitoring. A remote employee can easily spend less than 20 minutes per day babysitting the printer while going on with their regular life.
You can't drive from upstate New York to Utah in 6 hours. Speculation above is that he drove to Utica, which is in New York, and which makes sense because the buyback program was run by a New York official.
I don't know how much time or electricity it took, but $21k is a lot of money. I bet his profit after costs was well over $10k. Seems like pretty good money to me.
I don't know how much time or electricity it took, but $21k is a lot of money. I bet his profit after costs was well over $10k. Seems like pretty good money to me.
What kind of chump would waste an entire week and a couple hundred bucks to make $20k?? I do that in an hour.
At least 38% of them are off the streets now, which is all that really matters.
Based on the overwhelming and scientifically-proven (and 4/10 doctor-recommended!) success of this program, it should be implemented everywhere, but at $750-$1,000 per gun, because more == better.
At least 38% of them are off the streets now, which is all that really matters.
Based on the overwhelming and scientifically-proven (and 4/10 doctor-recommended!) success of this program, it should be implemented everywhere, but at $750-$1,000 per gun, because more == better.
there are people who would believe that 20K would set them up for life.
some people are incredibly indigant, eating handmedown food, feeling elated that the days work ends in exchange of 20$ worth of beer cans.
some people are incredibly indigant, eating handmedown food, feeling elated that the days work ends in exchange of 20$ worth of beer cans.
[deleted]
He walked away with a payout nearly equal to the median individual yearly income in my area for a week or two of effort.
I know the article had it wrong, but Salt Lake County in Utah did have a foolish gun buy back program. They offered just $100 per "assault rifle" and $50 for other kinds _in gas gift cards_. If I remember correctly, they got maybe 30 guns total.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/6/3/23153532/salt-lake-cit...
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/6/3/23153532/salt-lake-cit...
it doesnt have to work, only potential to work when assembled, otherwise the whole federal definition of receiver, and firearm starts to crumble into something approaching reality.
for example a 2x4 profiled to fit an AR upper, and having one [!] hole [!] drilled where the trigger group belongs, is considered a firearm; if you dont drill in to the FCG pocket you have a lower blank [not a firearm yet]
for example a 2x4 profiled to fit an AR upper, and having one [!] hole [!] drilled where the trigger group belongs, is considered a firearm; if you dont drill in to the FCG pocket you have a lower blank [not a firearm yet]
The Iron Pipeline is responsible for the vast majority of guns used in crimes in NY, which NY has virtually no power over. Guys going out of state and buying guns in private straw purchases to resell or trade on the market back in NY. This guy only shows how easily transporting guns across state lines is. The half solution has always been to regulate the private sell of guns (you have to do a background check in most states to buy a gun but not in a private sale) but even that is a half measure because if you did it private gun ownership "thefts" would skyrocket.
Man, I had no idea people were so hostile to gun buybacks.
Really?
I've literally parked outside a police station in the past with a sign saying "I buy guns for cash". The PD was paying $50-100; I spent about $500 total and ended up with several nice rifles that were inherited by people who knew didn't want them and had no idea of their value.
To be clear, while I paid much less than retail value for them I showed them price comparisons online while talking to them. Some people decided to keep them, some decided to sell to a dealer later, and some people were happy to get $50 more than the police would have given them.
The highlight of that day was an older lady that had a beautiful Mauser 98k that her husband had brought back after fighting in WW2. She said she needed the money and honestly thought the $100 gift card the police department offered was fair. We exchanged numbers and she ended up selling it to a dealer for $900.
I've literally parked outside a police station in the past with a sign saying "I buy guns for cash". The PD was paying $50-100; I spent about $500 total and ended up with several nice rifles that were inherited by people who knew didn't want them and had no idea of their value.
To be clear, while I paid much less than retail value for them I showed them price comparisons online while talking to them. Some people decided to keep them, some decided to sell to a dealer later, and some people were happy to get $50 more than the police would have given them.
The highlight of that day was an older lady that had a beautiful Mauser 98k that her husband had brought back after fighting in WW2. She said she needed the money and honestly thought the $100 gift card the police department offered was fair. We exchanged numbers and she ended up selling it to a dealer for $900.
> The highlight of that day was an older lady that had a beautiful Mauser 98k that her husband had brought back after fighting in WW2. She said she needed the money and honestly thought the $100 gift card the police department offered was fair. We exchanged numbers and she ended up selling it to a dealer for $900.
This is the aspect of gun buybacks that really rubs me wrong. They take advantage of ignorant and desperate people by not paying the fair market value of the guns. Old widows regularly get scammed out of thousands of dollars by these cops.
Incidentally, paying fair market value for the guns is also the solution to people trying to sell 3d printed crap. Offer them the pennies a plastic recycler might offer for it.
This is the aspect of gun buybacks that really rubs me wrong. They take advantage of ignorant and desperate people by not paying the fair market value of the guns. Old widows regularly get scammed out of thousands of dollars by these cops.
Incidentally, paying fair market value for the guns is also the solution to people trying to sell 3d printed crap. Offer them the pennies a plastic recycler might offer for it.
They are awful and do nothing except waste taxpayer money. If you want to really want to get rid of a gun, you get much more for your money by selling it to a gun store. It can also lead to the destruction of historically interesting guns. Luckily, in this respect, some states such as Arizona which prohibits the state and local governments from destroying firearms. So we they don't do "buybacks" here anymore.
The very term is a lie. These guns were almost surely never owned by the government, so it is not buying anything back. Guns do not belong to the government by default. The word has also been used to describe involuntary confiscation of weapons, which many people who value their rights would oppose in the strongest terms.
In addition, guns have value to people for more than functionality. There's endless stories of people selling "back" their grandpa's WW2 take back piece that would be worth thousands of dollars to the right collector and would be restored and enjoyed for decades, only for a police officer to at best "lose" it in transport or more likely send it to be melted down for scrap so someone could get a $50 gift card and local police can post to Twitter about how another dangerous war relic is off the streets.
In addition, guns have value to people for more than functionality. There's endless stories of people selling "back" their grandpa's WW2 take back piece that would be worth thousands of dollars to the right collector and would be restored and enjoyed for decades, only for a police officer to at best "lose" it in transport or more likely send it to be melted down for scrap so someone could get a $50 gift card and local police can post to Twitter about how another dangerous war relic is off the streets.
Buyback as in you bought it from somewhere, and the government buys it from you. Buyback doesn't, to me anyway, imply that the government sold it to you in the first place.
> Buyback as in you bought it from somewhere, and the government buys it from you.
That's simply "buying".
That's simply "buying".
Sure, but a “government gun buying program” sounds like they’re starting their own collection.
"buy back" doesn't imply destroy. If I sell something to you then buy it back from you, there is no implication that I subsequently destroy whatever it was.
Your position in this whole sub-thread is very odd.
Your position in this whole sub-thread is very odd.
My position is whatever you think of gov “buyback” programs, the name being misleading isn’t a valid criticism. Nobody thinks the implication is the government sold you the gun in the first place. Sure, it’s a slightly irregular use of the term “buyback”, but governments and corporations and people use language irregularly all the time and it means very little.
Your notion of the word doesn't match the definition :
NOUN buyback (noun) the buying back of goods by the original seller. the buying back by a company of its own shares. a form of borrowing in which shares or bonds are sold with an agreement to repurchase them at a later date: "a share buy-back" synonyms: retrieve · regain · recover · get back · reclaim · repossess
NOUN buyback (noun) the buying back of goods by the original seller. the buying back by a company of its own shares. a form of borrowing in which shares or bonds are sold with an agreement to repurchase them at a later date: "a share buy-back" synonyms: retrieve · regain · recover · get back · reclaim · repossess
Other dictionaries include broader definitions. American heritage dictionary specifically includes a “government program to incentivize something” definition. Googling buyback brings the top hit of a company that will buy your used electronics.
Well, no matter your personal definition I stand by my response illustrating why some people are very hostile to so-called gun buybacks.
Far from hostile, he seems like their biggest fan and number one contributor.
I'm less hostile to them now that I know they can make me rich :)
Well, that’s not a nice thing to do, but I m amazed by his ingenuity.
This remembers me to the story of the UK trying to eliminate cobras in India. They offered some money in exchange for a dead cobra. It turned out that the locals started to farm cobras to get the bounty. After the government understood it was not working, they stoped the program. All people farming cobras left them in the wild... at the end the amount of cobras was a multiple as the beginning...
It is difficult to make good public policies.
It is difficult to make good public policies.
Government regulations are not the answer.
Yeah! Government regulations have never solved anything, ever! Except automobile safety, food safety, workplace safety, medical safety, and a few other things, but other than that they've NEVER solved ANYTHING!
Regulate me harder, daddy!
roflmao
Based on the search results and how the copy is replicated across multiple "news" domains this story is probably a fake.
Of course, criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. Gun buybacks have always just been useful for their second order effects -- forgotten guns in attics being stolen, found by kids, etc.
Yes, people take advantage of these events. There's not much of a way to filter participants by intent. People turn in broken or rusty junk that is not of danger anyway. Doing it with a junk plastic gun is not much different than doing the same with junk guns made from other materials. But the bottom line is I don't think anyone ever thought that the results of these events would be 1-for-1 removal of crime guns off the street.