DOJ Settles In Landmark Gun Suit, Safeguarding the 2nd Amendment!

[Jhhnn]

The last time I've done research on using deadly force in legal self defense the user of those items will quickly find themselves in hot water, especially with the bump stump.

Shee-it, Sherlock. The guy would probably get some king of medal if it were in Texas, particularly if it was an illegal who got pumped full of lead.

 

[whm1974]

I'm pretty tech savvy as far as things go, but I'd rather buy a specific gun made by someone with a lot better equipment than I could ever afford to have, than to print one at home myself. Seems to me the only fun use at home would to be to make something illegal anyway 😉

The last is false. This can be a hobby for some people, an expensive hobby for sure. bit still a hobby

 

[whm1974]

Shee-it, Sherlock. The guy would probably get some king of medal if it were in Texas, particularly if it was an illegal who got pumped full of lead.

He still would be charge and investigated. Especially if the case isn't cut and dry.

 

[rommelrommel]

Recommending an AR-15 for home defense is like when Purdue pharmaceuticals recommends their oxycontin for anxiety.

If you had to shoot someone a rifle is almost always preferable to a pistol. Rifle rounds are quite capable of dropping someone very quickly, there’s a reason why hunters generally don’t use pistol rounds (aside from challenge.)

People shot with handguns usually live if they have timely access to medical intervention, people shot with rifles usually don’t.

 

[Cerb]

I'm pretty tech savvy as far as things go, but I'd rather buy a specific gun made by someone with a lot better equipment than I could ever afford to have, than to print one at home myself. Seems to me the only fun use at home would to be to make something illegal anyway 😉

It would be something cool to do. Realistically, you're either going to spend serious money on 3D printers, or serious time. You won't spend $200 and be able to print many large plastic bits accurately and reliably. For $400 and a few hundred hours of your time, you might be to able to fix the reliable part. For similar time, and $1000, you can do OK speed, size, and reliability, and be able to print trickier plastics (FI, a partially sealed CoreXY style printer), but you will still have to tinker with each new filament to get it printing just right, and actually build the thing. The costs go up higher for custom CNC. You can do things way cheaper than you could if buying a turnkey system, but there is a big time and stress trade-off to it, unless you enjoy tinkering with those types of tools as a hobby unto itself, which many do.

 

[whm1974]

If you had to shoot someone a rifle is almost always preferable to a pistol. Rifle rounds are quite capable of dropping someone very quickly, there’s a reason why hunters generally don’t use pistol rounds (aside from challenge.)

People shot with handguns usually live if they have timely access to medical intervention, people shot with rifles usually don’t.

I will make this as clear as I can. You use deadly force to stop the other person from killing or doing grave bodily harm to you, not to intentionally kill the other person. The law in the US has very clear on this.

If the jury finds that you use deadly force with the intent to kill, you find yourself convicted of murder.

 

[Aikouka]

But fast forward 5 years, it'd be a good bet that plastics have gotten a lot heartier if entire assault rifles can be made so I'd guess that .38 and 9mm are on the table.

The most common plastics for 3D printing are PLA and ABS. Out of those two, you'd likely want to lean toward ABS as it has a higher "melting point" (ABS technically doesn't melt) and a higher glass point. While I don't profess to know a lot about gun physics other than "boom" and "fast projectiles", the one thing that I would immediately worry about is the heat generated from the priming cap explosion and how that transfers into the gun. Also, along the same lines, how does the plastic react to the shockwave from the explosion? You'd likely want a material that is durable yet not so inflexible that it breaks from the stress.

I'd imagine leaning toward slightly less common printing materials would be advisable such as polycarbonate plastics. The only awkward aspect to polycarbonate is that it's prone to shrinkage and warping after printing, which isn't exactly a great trait when you need accurate, to-spec components.

 

[rommelrommel]

I will make this as clear as I can. You use deadly force to stop the other person from killing or doing grave bodily harm to you, not to intentionally kill the other person. The law in the US has very clear on this.

If the jury finds that you use deadly force with the intent to kill, you find yourself convicted of murder.

You don’t need to lecture me, I’ve had a lot more training than you on the topic I would wager. A rifle is still far more effective at stopping the other person, if they die that is just an unfortunate consequence of stopping them.

 

[whm1974]

You don’t need to lecture me, I’ve had a lot more training than you on the topic I would wager. A rifle is still far more effective at stopping the other person, if they die that is just an unfortunate consequence of stopping them.

Be as that be, I knew way too many people who went off half-cocked in deciding to own firearms for self protection and brought one without doing their due diligence.

 

[Jhhnn]

He still would be charge and investigated. Especially if the case isn't cut and dry.

Yeh, a guy never knows if a 30 round magazine will be enough, ya know?

 

[whm1974]

Yeh, a guy never knows if a 30 round magazine will be enough, ya know?

You also never know if you will have multiple attackers trying to kill you either. Don't scoff, this is a real possibility, especially in areas with gangs.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yeah sure but that’s a long way from printing assault rifles as you claimed.

1911 is hardly a good design to pump out via home CNC anyways, it requires very high tolerances or a lot of fitting to work reliably.

Making a certain shape out of a certain metal will become pretty accessible but heat treating or some kind of substitute will likely be out of reach of unskilled home manufacturers for many years yet.

Crude handmade blockback submachineguns don’t require a huge amount of skill to make anyways, especially when you can buy almost everything except a receiver.

Well many anti-gun nuts would probably consider the Shuty to be an "assault rifle" because of its long stock. I mean 6000+ rounds shot and no failure yet, does it really need "heat treating" at this point? That's pretty dam successful for a glock clone, and like I said before the non-printable parts are pretty dam cheap ($155) compared to a retail glock. Especially if people are making more than one which is where the printers really shine in cost to value ratio.
https://youtu.be/1W-eFOOy1aM

How will that work? I mean, for $10,000 printers, fine, but when someone is taking some Chinese FOSS boards, stepper motors, drill and lathe parts, cut-to-size extrusions, etc., I don't see that working out. Plus, just having a unique ID doesn't mean anything, unless it can be discerned from the final printed part. It's not a technology that lends itself towards centralized control.

OTOH, it will also be expensive enough, for the foreseeable future, that commercially made high quality firearms on the black market will likely be cheaper, so outside of unregulated killbots, it's probably not actually a concern, and that subject is on a whole other level.

Yeah I don't know how they would put a unique identifier on printers, but what I meant was that they will probably try to regulate them in the future to prevent one person from printing out guns for their entire neighborhood (which people will probably do anyway). This would allow LEOs to at least tie the ghost gun to a certain printer, which could be tied to a person in the event of a crime. If you aren't the original owner, you'd theoretically be in trouble if LEO checked it against a 3D printer db and you don't own that printer. Of course the general populace could counter by just filing that number off, but then LEOs could charge you with a crime for doing that as well. A different workaround would be to create the part without a regulated printer which Feds could require to try and make our lives tougher.

Define "high quality", b/c Shuty is 6000+ rounds without failure and that's not even one of Cody's designs (it's open source community created). Accuracy and precision? Probably still better in commercial for now, but Cody's files will replicate the exact parts so I don't know if there's going to be much of a difference other than craftsmanship, e.g. if small welds are required or not. Not hard to do and every man should learn how to weld, but it's not something that everyone wants to necessarily learn. As time passes and tech progresses, the gap between the layman and commercial manufacturers will get less and less and I wouldn't be surprised if many gun manufacturers either went out of biz or have to lower their prices.

 

[whm1974]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but legally in the US aren't firearms required to have some metal in them?

 

[Paladin3]

I will make this as clear as I can. You use deadly force to stop the other person from killing or doing grave bodily harm to you, not to intentionally kill the other person. The law in the US has very clear on this.

If the jury finds that you use deadly force with the intent to kill, you find yourself convicted of murder.

This is true. You continue to shoot until the threat is stopped, not until the attacker is necessarily dead.

But this does NOT mean you have any duty to shoot to wound or try to avoid killing the suspect. Shooting to wound can actually get you in legal trouble. It can be seen as you feeling the threat wasn't actually serious enough for you to use deadly force. Deadly force is the last option when there is no other way to stop or avoid the attack.

 

[whm1974]

This is true. You continue to shoot until the threat is stopped, not until the attacker is necessarily dead.

But this does NOT mean you have any duty to shoot to wound or try to avoid killing the suspect. Shooting to wound can actually get you in legal trouble. It can be seen as you feeling the threat wasn't actually serious enough for you to use deadly force. Deadly force is the last option when there is no other way to stop or avoid the attack.

Thanks for bringing that up. And don't shoot to miss on purpose, that is being reckless.

 

[whm1974]

I think one thing should be made very clear. If the attacker turns and flees do not shoot, let him. legally the person is no longer a threat. I feel this us my duty to mention this as I have argued with too many people who think you can shoot a fleeing attacker.

 

[Jhhnn]

.

I will make this as clear as I can. You use deadly force to stop the other person from killing or doing grave bodily harm to you, not to intentionally kill the other person. The law in the US has very clear on this.

If the jury finds that you use deadly force with the intent to kill, you find yourself convicted of murder.

You apparently haven't been to Texas-

https://thinkprogress.org/three-sel...en-worse-than-stand-your-ground-b425742ff724/

Nor do you understand Castle doctrine very well, either. Read up.

 

[whm1974]

.


You apparently haven't been to Texas-

https://thinkprogress.org/three-sel...en-worse-than-stand-your-ground-b425742ff724/

Nor do you understand Castle doctrine very well, either. Read up.

Texas is indeed a special case.

 

[Paladin3]

.


You apparently haven't been to Texas-

https://thinkprogress.org/three-sel...en-worse-than-stand-your-ground-b425742ff724/

Nor do you understand Castle doctrine very well, either. Read up.

Yes, in Texas and other places you have no duty to retreat from your home, and in some instances your car, if attacked. Also, you have the right to use deadly force to protect your property. But lots of folks forget the term "reasonable" in those laws. You cannot just shoot someone for shits and giggles because you find them in your house if they are not a threat. That is not what the Castle doctrine allows.

Also, the one about law enforcement is totally logical. Law enforcement officers don't get a free pass to break the law. If they are a threat to your safety, engaged in violating the law, then you can you reasonable force to protect yourself. This is the same basic right to self-defense every person has.

But none of this is a free pass to kill whenever you want to, no mater how much you'd love to believe it is. The threat and use of force needs to be what the judge and jury finds REASONABLE or you are guilty of a crime.

 

[SP33Demon]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but legally in the US aren't firearms required to have some metal in them?

Yes per a congressional bill that was renewed in 2013 that required some metal has to be in printed guns. It was renewed for 10 years until 2023, don't remember the name of it tho.

 

[SP33Demon]

Looks like certain asshole Lefties have just caught wind of this news. 😀

https://www.wonkette.com/asshole-do...-to-help-assholes-make-their-own-asshole-guns

 

[whm1974]

Yes per a congressional bill that was renewed in 2013 that required some metal has to be in printed guns. It was renewed for 10 years until 2023, don't remember the name of it tho.

Do you recall how much metal is legally required?

 

[whm1974]

Looks like the Far Left doesn't do more anymore fact checking then the Far Right does.

 

[SP33Demon]

Do you recall how much metal is legally required?

Looks like 3.7 oz.

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-undetectable-firearms-act-and-3d-printed-guns-faq/

Q: What are the specifics of the Undetectable Firearms Act?
The meat of the law makes it a federal offense to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive" a firearm capable of defeating airport metal detection. It requires that any firearm, minus the stock, grips, and magazine, have an X-ray detection signature no less than that of a calibration sample containing 3.7 ounces of stainless steel.

The law also prohibits you from making or selling a firearm that "does not generate an [X-ray] image that accurately depicts the shape of the component." In other words, it's a federal crime to make and sell a gun that looks like something else to an airport X-ray scanner.

 

[SP33Demon]

Looks like the Far Left doesn't do more anymore fact checking then the Far Right does.

Yep looks like a complete meltdown in the comments section. This was especially funny:

David Brown • 11 hours ago
I've researched the tech for metal free guns. The only sensible proposals that still qualify as conventional firearms are on the lines of the classic "zip gun"- single shot and very limited number of uses. It would also require ceramics rather than plastics for the barrel, of a type currently used mainly in spacecraft.

Guy is too uninformed to realize that gun barrels ($50-150) and FCGs (under $20) are pretty dam affordable and nobody would print them out as a result.