Scientists build a low-cost, open-source 3-D metal printer

Dec 02, 2013
This is Michigan Tech's open-source 3-D metal printer in action. Credit: Chenlong Zhang

OK, so maybe you aren't interested in making your own toys, cellphone cases, or glow-in-the-dark Christmas decorations. How about a brake drum?

Until now, 3D printing has been a polymer affair, with most people in the maker community using the machines to make all manner of plastic consumer goods, from tent stakes to chess sets. A new low-cost 3D printer developed by Michigan Technological University's Joshua Pearce and his team could add hammers to that list. The detailed plans, software and firmware are all freely available and open-source, meaning anyone can use them to make their own metal 3D printer.

Pearce is the first to admit that his new printer is a work in progress. So far, the products he and his team have produced are no more intricate than a sprocket. But that's because the technology is so raw. "Similar to the incredible churn in innovation witnessed with open-sourcing of the first RepRap plastic 3D printers, I anticipate rapid progress when the maker community gets their hands on it," says Pearce, an associate professor of materials science and engineering/electrical and computer engineering. "Within a month, somebody will make one that's better than ours, I guarantee it."

Using under $1,500 worth of materials, including a small commercial MIG welder and an open-source microcontroller, Pearce's team built a 3D metal printer than can lay down thin layers of steel to form complex geometric objects. Commercial metal printers are available, but they cost over half a million dollars.

His make-it-yourself metal printer is less expensive than off-the-shelf commercial plastic 3D printers and is affordable enough for home use, he said. However, because of safety concerns, Pearce suggests that for now it would be better off in the hands of a shop, garage or skilled DIYer, since it requires more safety gear and fire protection equipment than the typical plastic 3D printer.

While metal 3D printing opens new vistas, it also raises anew the specter of homemade firearms. Some people have already made guns with both commercial metal and plastic 3D printers, with mixed results. While Pearce admits to some sleepless nights as they developed the metal printer, he also believes that the good to come from all types of distributed manufacturing with 3D printing will far outweigh the dangers.

In previous work, his group has already shown that making products at home with a 3D printer is cheaper for the average American and that printing goods at home is greener than buying commercial goods.

In particular, expanded 3D printing would benefit people in the developing world, who have limited access to manufactured goods, and researchers, who can radically cut costs of scientific equipment to further their science, Pearce said. "Small and medium-sized enterprises would be able to build parts and equipment quickly and easily using downloadable, free and open-source designs, which could revolutionize the economy for the benefit of the many."

"I really don't know if we are mature enough to handle it," he added cautiously, "but I think that with open-source approach, we are within reach of a Star Trek-like, post-scarcity society, in which 'replicators' can create a vast array of objects on demand, resulting in wealth for everyone at very little cost. Pretty soon, we'll be able to make almost anything."

Explore further: Air traffic control system failure is too complex to fix in a day

More information: The work is described in "A Low-Cost, Open-Source Metal 3-D Printer," to be published Nov. 25 in IEEE Access DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2293018

Related Stories

3D Builder is free 3D printing app for Windows 8.1

Nov 18, 2013

Microsoft continues to beat the drum as a technology company out to inspire and support 3D printing. After announcing earlier this year that it would be supporting 3D printing in Windows 8.1, Microsoft earlier ...

Recommended for you

FAA, industry launch drone safety campaign

4 hours ago

Alarmed by increasing encounters between small drones and manned aircraft, drone industry officials said Monday they are teaming up with the government and model aircraft hobbyists to launch a safety campaign.

Off-world manufacturing is a go with space printer

Dec 20, 2014

On Friday, the BBC reported on a NASA email exchange with a space station which involved astronauts on the International Space Station using their 3-D printer to make a wrench from instructions sent up in ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gjbloom
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 02, 2013
His concern about people printing guns is kind of silly. Plenty of people make guns already. Everything from licensed gunsmiths creating exact replicas to punks making zip-guns. The only reason 3D-printed plastic guns made news was that being made of plastic made them invisible to metal detectors.

I'd like to know the cost per cubic centimeter and what resolution they can achieve.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2013
"I really don't know if we are mature enough to handle it,"

Which is really the point. That one can print guns with this is not the problem. That there are people who WANT to print guns is the problem.
We should look more into creating a society where people don't feel that guns are cool (or the paranoia where they think guns are a necessity)
NOM
2.9 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2013
I doubt the resolution will be very good using a MIG welder. Still, even if the resolution and/or layer height was a couple of millimeters, there would be plenty of usefull things that could be printed.
Welding wire is cheap, so cost per cubic centimeter would be low.
Humpty
Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Heathicus
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2013
Antialias is fearful. His logic is so flawed his name shouldn't even have physorg in it. If I had one, I'd crank out so many it would make his head spin right off what little backbone he has. Aside from how people are paranoid about and who don't try to understand or learn or even use some inanimate object, this is pretty neat. This can make many parts that until now can only be made by lost wax casting. I've been waiting for one of these to surface and anxious to see how the technology improves!
MikeBowler
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 02, 2013
"I really don't know if we are mature enough to handle it,"

Which is really the point. That one can print guns with this is not the problem. That there are people who WANT to print guns is the problem.
We should look more into creating a society where people don't feel that guns are cool (or the paranoia where they think guns are a necessity)

i think guns are cool but that doesn't mean i would go out and shoot someone
dbsi
1 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2013
Very interesting, but
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2293018
is not found on dx.doi.org/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2013
We should look more into creating a society where people don't feel that guns are cool (or the paranoia where they think guns are a necessity)
Well this has been tried with forced castration and more recently with clever chemical additives like bisphenol and refined sugar.

But until some serious attention is paid to the genome itself, or at least until irresponsible crack-addicted alcoholic mothers quit damaging their kids in the womb, then we will have to live with the REALITY that criminals and abusers exist, and that we will need to protect ourselves and our families from them, if we have any sense whatsoever.

Luckily we dont need printers in our basements to secure the means with which to protect ourselves. We can just meet guido in the parking lot of the pussycat lounge and buy just about any GUN we feel we may need. Or we can get one at walmart. Either way.
carl_badgley
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2013
thank you Heathicus, i'm sure your ad hominem attacks will reassure us all as to your mental and logical superiority.
Estevan57
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 03, 2013
Otto, I'm very sorry your irresponsible crack-addicted, alcoholic, smoking mother damaged her kids in the womb.

It's probably the reason for your paranoia.
Noodle_Naut
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2013
The fear angle does seem a bit preposterous. There are metal guns everywhere. And obliviously some welder is not going to make a smooth barrel.

There are other machines that together along with the modest skills of a machinist can make most things you would need made of metal...if you are not too picky what metal was used.

I guess the attraction of printing is that few skills are required and perhaps you can set up some manufacturing thing with no one in the building; just a robot to push the made parts out of the way into the collection bin. Somehow, I suspect they will not be nearly ready for use unless it is making shot puts, sash window weights, dumbbells, or kettlebells.

Actually, making kettlebells is not a bad idea. They are totally overpriced and shipping is ludicrous. The design is very simple too.

Now, if they can make stuff out of titanium that is a different story. Who would not want to lower their unsprung car weight with titanium springs, hubs, you name it.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2013
his name shouldn't even have physorg in it.

Why? I do that on all sites so I can remember my login (as the name antialias is frequently taken). What's your problem with that?

Antialias is fearful.

Why? I don't feel a need to carry a gun or distrust my fellow humans - no bad experience because of it. Quite the contrary (and I have had a rather stress-free life as a consequence)

i think guns are cool but that doesn't mean i would go out and shoot someone

I don't feel the need to have everything I think is cool. I realize that people do change (have a bad day, develop mental disorders, etc. ) No one is safe from that. No exception (me included).

That someone says they are a 'responsible gun owner' right now (and they even might be...right now) doesn't mean diddly squat ten minutes from now.
Smileinbob
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2013
Antialias. I want you to take a look at your comments, You say that you don't feel the need to distrust your fellow humans, but then right after you say someone might be a 'responsible gun owner' but that doesn't diddly squat ten minutes from now. Right there, sir, you are flat out saying you do not trust your fellow human beings.

A firearm is an inanimate object and is no more capable of harm than a hammer is of driving a nail by itself. It takes a human guiding it for it to be able to do anything. There is nothing to fear in a chunk of steel, evil only resides in the hearts of men... and women (don't want to be sexist)
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2013
say that you don't feel the need to distrust your fellow humans, but then right after you say someone might be a 'responsible gun owner' but that doesn't diddly squat ten minutes from now.


There's no contradiction at all. I think you're falling for a false dichotomy here. That I don't distrust people as a standard attitude doesn't mean I go through life completely oblivious to realities. As always life is a lot more complex than black/white.

E.g. that I don't think that I need to be out of my mind with worry about crashing when setting foot onto a plane does not mean I don't know that plane crashes do happen.

It's always a complex analysis which incorporates likelyhood of an event happening AND damage caused by the event AND benefit of the issue at hand. And currently I think the damage caused in those gun related incidents is rather severe, likelyhood is low and benefit of having one is near to non-existent....which makes the total of allowing gun ownership not worth it.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2013
A firearm is an inanimate object and is no more capable of harm than a hammer is of driving a nail by itself.

I'll make an extreme example: A nuclear bomb. Now a nuclear bomb is an inanimate object no more capable of harm than a hammer is of drving a nail by itself. Would you feel good if everyone in your city had a nuclear bomb at home? If not then you know how the calculation goes (see my last post)

That you and I draw the line at different levels of "usefulness/effect if misused/risk of such an event" as to whether we find it acceptable or not is a personal issue...and one each of us strives to have accepted by society at large (you must live in your society with its attitude towards guns and I in mine. But the result is that I will not set foot in yours. That's it)
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Smileinbob
2 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013

There's no contradiction at all. I think ... complex than black/white.


And your thoughts here are my exact reasoning for CC of firearms, I don't fear everyone one I walk past on the street, but on the off chance one might try to harm me or mine, I want to be able to defend myself and my family.


It's always a complex analysis which incorporates likelyhood ..which makes the total of allowing gun ownership not worth it.


It is interesting how the CDC report on guns found pretty much the exact opposite in that guns are effective used in preventing crime. And that gun crime and crime in general is getting lower.

You want to look at the big picture but you seem to be missing it. In 2010 a gallup poll estimated 80 million gun owners in the us, same year there were 8874 firearms murders. Your logic is because of those just under 9000 bad uses of a fire arm over 80 million should lose their rights. It would make more sense to outright ban cars because of drunk drivers.
Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
Antialias,

There is a contradiction in your example whether you would like to see it or not. You cannot accuse of distrust of one's fellow man and then distrust your fellow man. Your elaborations do not clarify the contradictions and instead make it more obvious.

You have an opinion, it makes unrealistic assumptions (no benefit to gun ownership, high risk, etc) with no allocations for reality (which I must go off of). You are entitled to your opinion, however.

A nuclear bomb in comparison to a gun is a false analogy. A gun is more readily compared to a tool with specific uses (personal and abstract). Self defense, personal enjoyment (target shooting, hunting, etc), and layer of defense from tyranny (in the case, or rather intention, of America). If speaking of America, the right for arms is guaranteed. A nuclear bomb is a tool that does not have a personal element. It is a tool of nations to project mass destruction. It has no non-strategic purpose. Your point was ineffective.
Smileinbob
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013

I'll make an extreme example: A nuclear bomb. calculation goes (see my last post)


well at least you realize it is an extreme example, its also an apples and oranges situation, if you honestly think you can equate a firearm to a nuclear weapon then trying to have a rational discussion is pointless due to major flaws in your logic.

But to answer your question. No It wouldn't bother me because we have lived with pretty much the same example sense the advent of the nuclear weapon, you may remember this thing called the cold war.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2013
Why? I don't feel a need to carry a gun or distrust my fellow humans
Sure you do. You distrust ALL law-abiding people who choose to carry a gun - you said so yourself. You also distrust the US military and apparently most Americans in general.
no bad experience because of it
Perhaps you've been lucky or merely privileged. But why do you disparage those people who HAVE been victims, or who don't want to be victims, and so choose to arm themselves? Because they scare you?
Quite the contrary (and I have had a rather stress-free life as a consequence)
And how do you know this lotus-eater state is not just a consequence of refusing to acknowledge the dangerous world we all live in? Many victims will tell you they never thought that would happen to them. We hear this all the time.

But is it really a healthy state to ignore potential threats, or to try to convince or force others to ignore them along with you?

We know that these people make you uncomfortable. Why?
KBK
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
These dipshits.........a lowly computer game and literal adult toy fetish tainted bunch of fossil hippies turned Marxists.


Well, at least they can't say you don't have an agenda.

Nice bit of mirrored masturbation.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2013
People don't rely on bombs to defend themselves from knockout game psychopaths, home invaders, rapists, and car jackers, you pampered idiot of false analogy.

They should rely on the police (and before that on a society that doesn't produce those kinds of individuals on a basis regular enough to worry about). But that's just personal opinion. If you feel safe hiding behind an arsenal of guns - fine. But don't expect anyone to feel safe around YOU for that very same reason.

if you honestly think you can equate a firearm to a nuclear weapon

I did not equate the tow. I did try to make you see that the type of calculation is a fluid one and that your argument is flawed about a gun just being an inanimate object - and its properties not being part of the equation. The issue about how to rate it is an analog one and open to personal/society wide preference.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2013
There is a contradiction in your example whether you would like to see it or not. You cannot accuse of distrust of one's fellow man and then distrust your fellow man.

Not really - it's a very consistent view:
Consider:
A person who distrusts everyone is a person who knows about distrust (i.e. because they feel that they themselves are not trustworthy)
A person who does not distrust anyone does not know about distrust.

Consequently I give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt - I trust them. UNLESS they show through actions or words that they are distrustful people (e.g. by openly admitting to being distrustful as a base attitude or by actions such as owning guns which symbolise fear/paranoia of others). In that case I distrust them.

As always: The world isn't black and white. One needs to act according to circumstances.
Unbiased Observer
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2013
Antialias,
To address your contradiction… If you decry a man's (a gun owner) distrust of his fellow man, but in turn distrust your fellow man (the gun owner) you are a hypocrite. The only way for there to be a lack of hypocrisy is if the definition of human does not apply to the gun owner. Would you like to make that argument?
So would you argue that saving some money out of a paycheck is fearful/paranoid behavior? Or would it simply be responsible behavior to pad against unforeseen circumstances? Your logic would dictate that no one should save any money as doing so would label them as a "human worthy of distrust."
Your argument hinges on that the mere ownership of a gun indicates paranoid behavior, which allows you to distrust them (making them less than human perhaps, see first point). What is paranoid about preparing for unknown circumstances? Would you also say anyone who enjoys archery is also a paranoid (some people enjoy firearms for the marksmanship potential)?
Cont….
Unbiased Observer
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2013
Also you still stand by your assertion that a nuclear weapon is comparable to a gun. Your evidence has been refuted; in order to continue with that assertion new evidence must be held up for evaluation. Until then, utilizing disproven false analogies as a basis for a logical argument and conclusion is invalid.

It is obvious you are unfamiliar with guns. It is also obvious you are not a scientist, as a scientist must change his/her hypothesis when experimentation proves its invalidity. I ask for the evidence or at least a cessation of the emotional basis that seems to form your world view.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2013
I trust them. UNLESS they show through actions or words that they are distrustful people (e.g. by openly admitting to being distrustful as a base attitude or by actions such as owning guns which symbolise fear/paranoia of others)
Yeah I know. And by extension you distrust all those who agree that we need others to carry guns to protect us. Like the military or the police.

IOW you feel that we can eliminate crime and terrorism and violence of all sorts just by refusing to defend ourselves against it. 'Make love not war' says AA. 'What if we threw a war and nobody came' says AA. 'People will be nice to you if you would only be nice to them' pines saint Anti. 'Nam yoho renge kio' drones the AA prayer wheel.

What made us human is our ability to anticipate future events and to prepare for any eventuality. Most people would be glad to give up the ability and the RIGHT to defend themselves when there is no longer a reason to do so. And NOT before.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
A person who distrusts everyone is a person who [instinctively projects their own nature onto others, as a default impression].
A person who does not distrust anyone [instinctively projects their own nature onto others, as a default impression]. - AntiAlias_PhysOrg


I edited your point here just a bit, but it is an interesting and real physiological phenomenon. It just does not logically apply in the present discussion. It's not your fault, it's just that you have a liberal mentality.

One basis for owning a gun is in a distrust of Criminals, not other people generally. Since EVERYONE distrusts criminals, your analysis is faulty.

......
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
Consequently I give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt - I trust them. UNLESS they show through actions or words that they are distrustful people [...] In that case I distrust them. - Antialias_PhysOrg


Ohhhh I see, so when a pack of criminals breaks into your home and holds a knife to your wife's head demanding money while your three year old is in hysterics, you would then decide to distrust the criminal?

Wouldn't that be too late and thus quite useless? It would seem better to distrust criminals as a general conclusion before hand.

Would your family members then form a distrust your defective and disinterested liberalism?

(e.g. by openly admitting to being distrustful as a base attitude or by actions such as owning guns which [symbolize] fear/paranoia of others)


It is telling that as an example, you would choose the act of "owning guns" as assessing distrustfulness, ... but avoid choosing the core basis of owning guns,... protection from criminals
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2013
Ohhhh I see, so when a pack of criminals breaks into your home and holds a knife to your wife's head demanding money while your three year old is in hysterics, you would then decide to distrust the criminal?

If know that they are criminal before then i would distrust them before then. How hard is that to understand? I just don't distrust anyone in the street just because they could be the ones who break into my home at some point in the future.

It would seem better to distrust criminals as a general conclusion before hand.

That's exactly what I said. If you know someone should not be trusted because there is EVIDENCE then don't trust them. If I know someone is a criminal I don't trust them. You will find that sentiment expressed by me all over the comment section: From distrusting Rossi to criticizing rygg for talking about "honest criminals".
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2013
It is telling that as an example, you would choose the act of "owning guns" as assessing distrustfulness

It is the subject of the debate at hand, after all. Why would I chose something else?
but avoid choosing the core basis of owning guns,... protection from criminals

As noted: I think that form of protection is bought at a terrible cost: the dissolution of society via distrust. That's not worth it (and there are plenty of other way to make sure you don't have to fear other people. They're just a bit harder to achieve)
I also think that form of 'protection' hasn't proven to be effective.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2013
I trust them. UNLESS they show through actions or words that they are distrustful people (e.g. by openly admitting to being distrustful as a base attitude or by actions such as owning guns which symbolise fear/paranoia of others)

... [...] IOW you feel that we can eliminate crime and terrorism and violence of all sorts just by refusing to defend ourselves against it....


It's even worse than that, in the defective mind of a 'progressive liberal', of which this site is infected, along with like-minded cowardly bias and corrupt troll-bots.

Even in the face of immense historical counter evidence, they think that society can be engineered, planned, and designed so as to make criminality and war obsolete.

---->
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
.....Notice in particular that their faulty mindset is contingent upon such a fantasy utopian society having already been established. They have never succeeded in the history of man at eliminating conditions that cause war and crime. Their reality is "what it should be", not "what it is". They're disinterested and useless idealists.

"They should rely on [..] a society that doesn't produce those kinds of individuals. - AA"

"We should look more into creating a society ... - AA"
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
Ohhhh I see, so when a pack of criminals breaks into your home and holds a knife to your wife's head demanding money while your three year old is in hysterics, you would then decide to distrust the criminal?


If I know that they are criminal before then i would distrust them before then. How hard is that to understand?


Ohhh I see, its the chicken and the egg thing, a basic principal of liberal logic.

OK, so as long as you know before then, that the future criminals are in fact criminals, that are going to break into you home, then you can just call the police, right? OK, maybe, but then you assume that the police are going to act on your supposed clairvoyance and arrest people for something they haven't yet done.

What about those majority of cases where your clairvoyance fails you, and you only find out because the EVIDENCE is that the criminals are holding a knife to you wife's head at that very moment?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2013
They should rely on the police (and before that on a society that doesn't produce those kinds of individuals)


The police can't protect you before a crime occurs for the most part, they can only react to a crime after it had already occurred.

It is telling that as an example, you would choose the act of "owning guns" as assessing distrustfulness


It is the subject of the debate at hand, after all. Why would I chose something else?


Because a more obvious, albeit inconvenient for you, example, would have been 'that a pack of criminals are holding a knife to your wife's neck' motivates distrustfulness,... and such is the bases for the decision of owning a weapon for self protection.

Your association of 'distrust' with the act of 'gun ownership', is a psychological projection of your liberal idealism onto reality, and is disinterested and a false façade, and as such is irresponsible.
____________
Dec 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2013
I think that form of protection is bought at a terrible cost: the dissolution of society via distrust.


I already corrected you above, by stating that distrust of criminals is a GOOD thing, not a defect in society.

Law abiding citizens who desire to protect their family via a gun, are by definition NOT criminals, so by your own psychological analysis outlined above, you have no basis for distrusting them.

That's not worth it (and there are plenty of other way to make sure you don't have to fear other people. They're just a bit harder to achieve)


That is your opinion, which you are not entitled to force others to accept it in a free society, until your liberal fantasyland utopia is achieved and the leftist solve poverty, crime, and war, while not causing the masses to revolt against the massive loss of liberty that would inevitably entail.

Once the NAZI's gained power in Germany, the crime rate amongst citizens plummeted.
Humpty
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 03, 2013
What is it with these fucking jerk off journalists - who trot out the most absurd shit - and then call it an article.

After reading this bit:

"While metal 3D printing opens new vistas, it also raises anew the specter of homemade firearms. Some people have already made guns with both commercial metal and plastic 3D printers, with mixed results. While Pearce admits to some sleepless nights as they developed the metal printer, he also believes that the good to come from all types of distributed manufacturing with 3D printing will far outweigh the dangers."

I doubt the idiot even knows what a MIG welding machine is - much less it's limit of detail.

And people have been "3D printing" with welding process's, ever since they evolved - i.e. building up worn shafts, hard facing digging equipment, refacing blades - the list goes on and on and on.
MikeBowler
1 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2013
i think guns are cool but that doesn't mean i would go out and shoot someone

I don't feel the need to have everything I think is cool. I realize that people do change (have a bad day, develop mental disorders, etc. ) No one is safe from that. No exception (me included).

That someone says they are a 'responsible gun owner' right now (and they even might be...right now) doesn't mean diddly squat ten minutes from now.

first, 3 stars from me, you make a valid point that somebody who is otherwise responsible and owns a working gun and has ammo may one day become mentally unstable and think about and perhaps may even use it

but i only said i thought they were cool, i said nothing about me owning one, i see no reason for me to own a working gun and honestly with my terrible aim with bb guns i wouldn't dare fire live rounds even if i wanted to, btw i don't own any bb guns either but i know people who do
AeroSR71
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2013
I happen to agree with everything antialias has said. Weapons proliferation would only occur in a fearful society. I'm not American, but to my understanding, the 2nd Amendment was written in the late 16th century. This was a time when the British colony's had a large social divide between British people, and Loyalists. The Loyalists were evidently fearful of their rulers, and the right to bear arms made sense. Who are you fearful of today? Your own government? A staunch distrust in each other? Listen, I'm Canadian, and the whole right to bear arms thing is as foreign to me as rural China. I mean, we have guns here too, but their used for legitimate hunting. No one here possesses or carries pistols, let alone machine guns :|
eric_in_chicago
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2013
Actually, AERO, the police in America are murdering and brutalizing our citizens at an astounding rate.

YouTube police brutality...just do it before you eat lunch.
eric_in_chicago
1 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2013
i contacted the maker.

here is the fixed link;

http://www.approp..._printer
AeroSR71
1 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2013
I'll assume that your statement eric, is in fact true. I'll also assume that the scale at which it is happening is widespread. So tell me, your solution to this problem is to arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your own law enforcement? This agency is trained and armed to the teeth. What makes you think your tiny little pistol would have any impact whilst being attacked by an agency with heavy equipment? The right thing to do of course, is to bring the matter before an appropriate arm of government with evidence and support. If, for example, your own government is so corrupt as to allow the murdering of its own citizens, than it becomes an international problem. Right.... The people of America will arm themselves with 3D printed pistols to attack the US government. Come on man, the discrepancy of power is so large at these scales that even full scale weapons proliferation (short of tanks/jets/etc.) would have zero impact.
eric_in_chicago
1 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2013
aero, sorry, i didn't make myself clear.

i only meant to refute the implication in your previous statement that we have no one to fear.

the solution is not more guns, no, nor an intervention from an international body.

the only solution that i can think of would be for people in this country to stop buying into fraudulent divisive politics as we are doing now and unify around issues that are real and relevant for all of us, form additional parties and actually vote.

we are too busy pointing the finger at each other over sexual politics, drugs, war and taxes to get anything done along the lines of saving our country.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2013
Aero,

To reiterate an example I used earlier... Is saving money for unanticipated situations fearful behavior? Or is it simply prudent? It is a prudent behavior as the future is in flux and circumstances, as antialias has stated, change. You should be able to see the fundamental hole in your argument.

We live in a non-perfect society. If men were angels your argument against the need for weapons would hold more weight. However, if all men were angels, all doing no wrong ever, we would also need no government, as there would be a perfect natural society. This is not reflective of reality.

If you are interested in the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment, I would suggest staying away from Wikipedia, and instead look more to the Federalist-Anti-Federalist letters. There are many more detailed and more informative sources available.

Cont…
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2013
The Bill of Rights lists the inalienable rights bestowed on man and guaranteed by the Constitution. The 2nd is part of this. It was created for multiple reasons and you can make a multitude of arguments for the reasons, but this format is ill suited for such a discussion. However, defense of self, defense of the 1st amendment, last line of defense against a tyrannical gov't, and many more are valid points associated with this amendment.

You also seem uninformed about firearms. If you actually researched them you may find an informed opinion is more powerful. You also seem under informed with regards to standard police armament. Also it would be relevant to discuss a soldier's oath, the willingness of military to actually take up arms against civilians, and military defect rate in such a situation as you propose. There is so much relevant information to explain I must ask that you identify more specific points as refutation of emotional arguments require more than 1000 characters.
met a more fishes
1 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2013
Humans are not violent or criminal by nature. Crime is an intended consequence of poverty. The paranoia resulting from the assumption that our fellow humans are generally disposed towards violence isthe result of concerted efforts by the media. These are both important components in keeping a population divided. Before it was criminals and violent gangs it was opposing religions and humans born in different geographical locations. Having a people divided and turned on itself is a precondition for control. This has been the case in every society, at least every society where wealth is concentrated in a small percentage.
Heathicus
1 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2013
Look at what I started. I want to print an engine manifold with some crazy coolant flow cavities.
PhotonX
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2013
Actually, making kettlebells is not a bad idea. They are totally overpriced and shipping is ludicrous
Why would this would be more economical? Isn't shipping the same for 50 pounds of kettlebells vs 50 pounds of mig welding wire? I suppose you can find local suppliers like Home Depot who ship in bulk and can pass part of that savings on.
.
As far as materials themselves, a quick look shows you'd be doing well to buy a roll for less than $2 USD per pound. So, for b50 pounds of kettlebells, even at $1.50/lb you'd be paying $75 for material, while the bottom couple of prices I found for uncoated 25# kettlebells at Amazon was $16 and $21 each, but even at $35 each a pair runs $70, still less than the bulk welding wire. That doesn't factor in the cost of the printer itself. I just don't see this being useful for such items, but more for small parts for which the cost per unit of weight is much higher, but not for simple heavy things such as kettlebells.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2013
Unbiased Observer betrays weird religious bias with this twist
The Bill of Rights lists the inalienable rights bestowed on man and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Bestowed - eh !
By who, or what, do they/it communicate ever ?
Surely you mean an (arbitrary & completely unqualified) claim, pretty narrow & only part of the north american continent and onto those that choose to maintain their citizenship by virtue of the accident of birth or immigration.

IIRC, US constitution re arms refers to a militia, so many zealots & military cultists have taken this so far out of context.

What you have now in usa is un-coordinated individuals not managed.

Do you really think the founding fathers of the US wanted such a dangerous mess - with all the chaos that has ensued ?

If the time occured again to form, say a new society, would you want an organised militia as in the constitution (to work in the community) or uncoordinated rag tag zealots who don't organise & have multiple weapons ?
Huns
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
I can go to the hardware store and buy a length of pipe, a pipe cap, then drill the cap and put in a nail for a firing pin. To fire, the pipe is loaded and then the nail is rammed into something to make it fire. $10 shotgun. Why do I need to spend $1500 on a 3D metal printer that can't give me the smooth bore of that pipe?

I honestly wish people would shut up about 3D printed guns. It's so much easier NOT to use one.
dav_daddy
not rated yet Jan 12, 2014
@antialias

You are falling for that super naive liberal logic. "If we outlaw guns then everyone will be safe! We all know that criminals would never break the law!"

That is the most flawed logic. The only valid arguments for gun control are that the number of accidental shootings falls (which more than offset by the rise in violent crime) also the suicide rate drops drastically.
Mike_Massen
not rated yet Jan 12, 2014
dav_daddy erroneously mumbled bad thinking
..The only valid arguments for gun control are that the number of accidental shootings falls (which more than offset by the rise in violent crime) also the suicide rate drops drastically.
Whenever some pratt/prick/mob-thinker says "The only..." you KNOW they are tired of thinking or intrinsically of low intelligence & unable to consider alternatives & assume a 'sane' or non-criminal will always be such. Sadly the sane easily become irrational & the (so called) non-criminal can easily become (selectively) criminal - division is not clear at all - THINK.

Confusion of static with dynamic is why the US constitution is at fault, the progenitors - although basing their logic on the Magna Carta & Charter of Liberties from UK some 500+ years before did not exercise much intelligence in terms of grammar & drafting & were influenced by fear their system would be attacked.

Check out Australian gun ownership vs deaths in last 40 years.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.