Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

The first Serious Debate parody of a Riff-Raff thread, now live.

Imagine we are living 20 years in the future and inexpensive 3D printers are common household appliances. Files for 3D printed firearms are readily available for download off the Internet. How do we handle them?

Remember that the world consists of more than just the US.

Have government agents edit the files to replace the barrel with dragon dildos.

Hello welcome to Serious Debate, the board that has dem strict rules.

Please relocate to Riff-Raff

Well…

1: I'm not sure if it would even be an issue because I'm fairly certain you can't 3D print gunpowder (a gun is kinda useless without a bullet).

2: From what I understand, a 3D gun would be pretty flimsy anyways, not good for more than a few shots, though I suppose that would be enough for some purposes.

3: I'm not sure you can do anything to "handle it". Even with laws against it (either prohibiting the creation of the files for it, or printing the gun itself) it's something that has so few middle men, regulating it completely would be difficult, if not outright impossible. Think about how easy it is for people to illegally download music and movies still. Anything short of total government control of internet access would probably be ineffective.

From what I understand, a 3D gun would be pretty flimsy anyways, not good for more than a few shots, though I suppose that would be enough for some purposes.

This is 20 years into the future, so it can be assumed the quality of 3D printing and printed guns has improved a lot.

Eh, fair enough on that point I suppose. There are already 3D printers that can work with softer metals, after all.

I would imagine in place like Europe, they'd have to place restrictions on what types of files for 3D printing can be downloaded. How they could feasibly do this, I'm not sure.

Also, I'd imagine these would still need to be registered in the U.S. once 3D printing become a major source of firearm production. So there's that.

I’m not sure if it would even be an issue because I’m fairly certain you can’t 3D print gunpowder (a gun is kinda useless without a bullet).

Good point, but I would think getting a hold of gunpowder alone (and hiding it) would be at least a little bit easier than getting a hold of a firearm and ammunition.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons 3D printed firearms are so controversial is that they have no metal content. Thus, they could be smuggled through metal detectors and subsequently used in terrorism.

Not only would there certainly be a US government crackdown if 3D printed guns became feasible, it would have bipartisan support, from the anti-gun groups on the left and the anti-terrorism groups on the right. They'd probably attempt to attack 3D printers themselves somehow, either regulating their capabilities, or making them outright illegal.

Going into the future doesn't change how 3D printing works. 3D printing just melts small pieces of a material according to a blueprint. You can't "print" gun powder because the usefulness of gunpowder is its reactive chemical structure. What you're implying is that people have their personal chemical reactor/lab, not a 3D printer. Same thing with those people that think people will "print" drugs. It doesn't work like that. Also my university has a 3D printing area where you can learn how to print 3D things for free it was fun.

edit: oops quoted wrong thing. I don't even know how to remove the quote part…

Yeah, I don't see Bullets being 3D printable, restricting bullet sales would be the answer to that

3D printed guns still can't fire conventional bullets. They explode. Considering the impracticality of getting a machine high quality enough to be capable of printing a gun that itself is capable of withstanding the explosion that fires the bullet which needs to be specially designed to fire without destroying the gun, I'm pretty sure criminals are going to stick to buying $50 pistols in alleyways. I remember seeing a gif of a 3D printed gun firing these specially designed bullets but it took like an hour to make each bullet and it didn't exactly look lethal.

The assumption here is that in 20 years, 3D printers will be capable of using stronger metals as a material. 3D printing isn't limited to plastic.

Also, a point I found on wikipedia.

"Printers that work directly with metals are generally expensive. However less expensive printers can be used to make a mold, which is then used to make metal parts."

A clever (yet obvious) work around.

And what common household item are you gonna use that mold to create a gun with?

here's why i put this question in riff-raff, i think it's silly. trying to predict what we'll do in 20 years is a waste of good brain power.

we make the assumption that 3d printers will become affordable common appliances, affordable isn't an impossible prediction, but since 3d printable guns are already available online do we really believe that the governments of the world will let these things be bought like toasters? outside of guns, who is to say that people won't use 3d printers to print copyrighted toys (how hard would it be to print a lego set?) i think the premise of them being another household product is a technocratic fantasy.

also i don't like these arguments

"This is 20 years into the future, so it can be assumed the quality of 3D printing and printed guns has improved a lot."

who is it to say it will? why should we assume that? it's 20 years from now, how can we say there won't be issues in the production of functioning fully printed weapons? this blind faith in technological advancement is what makes futurism such utter garbage.

Related.

(Done by Block Eraser/Gigatoast previously of KYM.)

>Not making a joke about downloading bear arms

If this could be a thing, then you'd have to consider what may end up happening in the US anyway, a country with citizens that already has relative ease in getting firearms: the banning of firearms.

Unregulated:

Hahahahahaha.
 
In the unlikely case (or short-term case) that printing guns (or anything that can cause damage at an unreasonably fast pace) is unregulated by governments, I think people in countries outside of the US might print out guns (if they could afford the printer and materials) more for kicks than for any actual use. I'm sure there would be an uptick in violent crime, but I think the culture of these countries (and better mental health services) wouldn't lead a massive increase in firearm deaths.

I think the most danger would come from very young children who print guns and fire them accidentally without their parents ever knowing (like the first time a kid stumbles on something mildly arousing by accident, except instead of shooting off your pecker, you shoot your pecker off.)

So I'd expect most Western countries would keep that in check simply through culture. But it's hard to predict: violent games are popular elsewhere.

• Do people play those games, because recreational use of firearms is so restricted,
  • i.e., People don't go hunting or to firing ranges, because they don't have access to guns.
• or is it more because it's known for a fact that the game is just a game, and the objective is only fun in the context of the game?
  • i.e., People don't go hunting or to firing ranges, because they don't have a real urge to use firearms in real life.

Without regulation, the appeal of violent video games would likely become evident. People would begin to participate in safer activities with firearms if people really just wanted to use firearms, or they'd print them out at the advent of the ability to print them and then forget about them.
 
The US is more gun happy in general, in possession and use. There is a culture where firearms are embedded into the lifestyles of Americans with regards to aggression and self-defense. But with that said, I don't think the use of firearms would increase or decrease. You can get guns here pretty easily. The only reason you couldn't is if you couldn't pass a background check.

Now it's hard to say if gun violence rates would increase, stay the same, or even decrease:

• Increase: Easier access to gun, people can use them in intentional and unintentional ways to harm themselves or others
• Stay the same: Everyone who wanted a gun already had one and was generally using them safely, and those who wanted a gun just gets them more easily but uses them just as safely.
• Decrease: People can more readily defend themselves against attacks of any sort and the knowledge of this deters criminal use of firearms.

I think all of these are just as feasible as the others, so…I'd say there wouldn't be any change in any firearm-related statistic.

I think the difference would be in what kind of firearm people could get. Assault weapons are still hard/illegal to get in the US, but people do want them. In this instance, more people have access to and own assault weapons, but most people don't intend on using them against people aggressively.

Regulated:

I suspect other countries wouldn't allow the technology to exist commercially anyway, because of what could happen. And I suspect that the citizens wouldn't be upset about the guns so much as not being able to print other things like automobiles, furniture, games, computers, toys, dakimakura, etc.
 
In the US, I suspect that it would also be a highly regulated practice and wouldn't be available to the public at large. It might be made available to certain entities, but at the least restrictive, I think you'd have to apply for a permit to have such a detailed 3D printer. That would basically become no different than applying for a gun license and having a background check run on you.

I think you'd also see any print job of that level of precision and size be sent to an entity to ensure that certain firearms/products aren't being printed by someone who isn't cleared to print them. In the same way Internet Service Providers can tell what you look at online, perhaps residential printers would send a report of what you print to someone to make sure what's being printed isn't suspicious or illegal. I figure by the time you can print usable guns automated recognition of materials in such a medium would increase so that computers could tell what was being printed by whom and send an alert/notification to someone that could take action on it.

I think how quickly and easily guns can be produced should also be considered.

• You can technically make a homemade bomb, but it may take some time and know-how.
• In the same vein, you could technically print a gun, but it might take a lot of time for it to print out all of the details of one.

By the time an angry, violent person decides to print out a gun and actually have the gun ready to go, they may have already calmed down and come to their senses.
 
Also, just like you need paper and ink to print, you'll need the proper materials to actually print a gun. Short of stuff you can't get legally/easily, it may be easier and even less expensive to just buy a gun via normal means (specifically in the US.)

Edit: I'd also like to point out that a thought experiment is meant to think about what would happen if something was the case. It's basically being deconstructivist to say that the proposed situation is impossible.

That's not the point. What if, by whatever Hand of God, it is?
 
 
Think, people. This is supposed to be fun.

Specifically, I don't know what tools you'd need at that point, though I'd wager it's not too far off from what a model railroader uses.

Anyways, the point is that even if you can't directly 3D print a gun, the tools (including a 3D printer) to make one a are not illegal. So I suppose it wouldn't be cheap, but if someone wanted to, they could.

I feel I should also reiterate that you can already 3D print metal objects, it's just that a 3D printer capable of that is prohibitively expensive at the moment.

And another note from wikipedia: "In 2014, a man from Japan became the first person in the world to be imprisoned for making 3D printed firearms. Yoshitomo Imura posted videos and blueprints of the gun online and was sentenced to jail for two years. Police found at least two guns in his household that were capable of firing bullets."

Source from The Verge

People have been melting metal and making their own ammo since it was invented, and kits to do that are so much cheaper and easier. In the event technology has vastly improved in 20 years, I don't think it will get to such a level of efficiency that it would be widely used enough to worry about it. Maybe people will use them to create crazy air rifles or paintball guns, that seems more feasible. I think the tech will do more for recreational shooters than criminal ones practically.

3D Printed guns are already a possibility.

It was called the Liberator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)

Interestingly enough it was designed to be a one-shot gun, and named after a particular British made gun in WW2 that was used to distribute to Polish underground anti Nazi resistance.

See, the logic behind it was: A resistance fighter was to recover the gun, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons.

The reality of 3D printed fire arms is a scary one, but also one that points, quite evidently, for the need of the common man to have some grasp of how to handle firearms.

How would people 3D printing guns be any different than people making home-made bombs? I don't see 3D printed guns really changing anything.

They are easy to conceal , cheap to make, and considering the material, can be untraceable.

How do we handle them?

What kind fo 3-D printers? If they're plastic, I can't see the barrel lasting very long, if at all. If memory serves, that Liberator catastrophically failed quite a bit. 20 years or not, plastic's not going to advance that much.

If they're metal, that kind of solves the "hidden from metal detector" issue. I'd actually be more concerned about printing the heavily restricted parts to convert semi-auto guns to full auto.

I'd say the solution would be in the printer itself. Perhaps some sort of built-in software that would detect when an illegal object was being constructed and either abort, or subtly build in a defect that would make it useless.

Of course, you could always hack the OS or build your own, but if you're that determined, I doubt there's any practical measures that could be implemented that would stop you.

An interesting thing about using plastic parts, is that it seems like a perfect weapon for a professional hitman, assuming it's reliable enough to fire at least 1 shot. Perform the contract, dispose of weapon, could probably melt it in a fire place… Why do I get the feeling that I'm now on a watchlist?

It already exists. Sure, low power and you cannot print the bullet, but right now things seem to be under control. Hard to predict what will happen within 20 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)

looking at the now…3d printers are basically a smaller more efficeient version of a CNC mill and lathe

however, most 3d printers are for plastics and most things that use metal parts use metal for a good reason. You dont see entire tools made out of plastic unless they say FISHER PRICE on them. ALso it takes a bit of know how to program a CNC or 3d printer as well in addition to the enginnerring of the final product to make sure it works. ALso most 3d printers cost a nice chunk of cash so not everyone is going to go out and buy one like home hobby milling equipment. as for 20 years, i dont think they will beocme as wide spread unless they become really simple to use and prices rapidly fall.

Also, keep in mind, if technology advances to the point that it's not too difficult to use a 3D printer to make a reliable and potentially lethal firearm, in that time we may develop some way to remotely make guns unable to shoot, or perhaps the gun will be rendered obsolete by some non-lethal weapon, like a literal stun gun or something.
I don't know how likely it is, I just figured that I'd mention that we should keep in mind potential changes that would occur between now and the development of a process that that is not too difficult that uses a 3D printer to make a reliable and potentially lethal firearm.

We can't. It's already turning into a serious problem.