Saturday, November 09, 2013

First gun all-3D-printed gun created

First gun all-3D-printed gun created: (MSN)

A company that specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun it says is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. 

It reads like a plot of a dystopian novel: People develop a technology that allows them to manufacture—themselves, in the privacy of their own homes—working guns. Law enforcement is unable to regulate firearms. Chaos ensues. 

When a design for The Liberator, the open-sourced and 3D-printed gun, was released last year, worriers could take some solace: The gun wasn't entirely composed of 3D-printed materials. The gun's firing pin—the thing, essentially, that put the fire in the firearm—was made of metal. And metal is extremely difficult to use as a material for 3D printing. Until ... it's not. 

A company called Solid Concepts, which specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun, it claims, that is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. The gun is not only fully metal-made; it is also capable of firing multiple rounds. (Liberator-style guns made of extruded plastic, on the other hand, are at this point able to fire one shot—ever.) The gun Solid Concepts is testing—and, indeed, using as a proof-of-concept—can fire 50 rounds. And be ready for more.
(click on the link at the top of the page to read the entire article ... Hat Tip to The G-Man!)

 I remembering watching an episode of Jay Leno's Garage (or whatever the show is) where he demonstrated this kind of laser technology.  What's it called?  Sintering?  I looked it up: this wikipedia article is almost 4 years out of date, which only proves that any published article is obsolete by the time we read it, if it involves engineering processes.

Yes, the machinery is quite expensive ... the old versions allow Jay Leno to build a plastic carburetor.

But .. a metal sintering process which creates a functional semi-automatic pistol?  Oh my, that's quite a different thing.

It's easy to believe that the skills and knowledge which allow one to construct an entire firearm, such as a 1911-style pistol with it's 54 distinct parts, present a daunting challenge.

The thing is, you can BUY parts for a 1911 on the open market with no governmental oversight.  They're not all that expensive.  The only part that the Feds define as a 'firearm' is the part that has a manufacturer's serial number on it:  the frame.

All one needs do to create a completely under-the-roses pistol is to create the frame.  You can buy the rest of the farm from Brownells (or Shotgun News, for that matter) with no more tracking/tracing/regulation than buying "parts".

Using sintering to build a (relatively) simple 3-dimensional object such as the frame of a 1911 seems to be less challenging.  The "Solid Concepts" people made the entire thing, one supposes, including the springs.  Coil springs require special metals.  The sear spring  is also 'special'.   But we're talking chump change here, and absolutely no governmental monitoring.  Same with firing pins, etc.

So, does this recent technological advance present a threat to Government regulation of firearms?

Hell yes!

What will the Feds do as a stop-gap measure?

Oh, you're so smart.  You're right, they will regulate the HELL out of this technology.  In fact, they're working on it already.

The REAL thing is ... do you remember "Jurassic Park", where "Malcolm" (Jeff Goldblum) is told that there is NO way the dinosaurs will reproduce?  His reply, in stentorian overtones, is that " will find a way ..."

We're saying, technology is expensive and hard to find, and cumbersome.  At first.  Then it gets simpler, and cheaper, and easier to operate.

For example, my first "cell phone" was a "Bag Phone".  It weighed a ton, was very expensive, cumbersome and ugly.

My current "smart phone" cost 20% of what that bag phone cost.  I've had it for five months and I'm still trying to learn all the ins and outs of using the damn thing, but I'm getting the hang of it without the need to register for a night-school course at my local community college.

I couldn't MAKE a cell phone (or an automobile, or probably even an electric generator), but if I HAD one, I could learn how to use it.

Saying that a DMLS is too complicated for most people to use doesn't buy many turnips, if the Feds expect that sheer technical complexity will prevent people from building their own untraceable, unregistered, non-serialized firearms.

Ever look at the receiver of an AR-16?  And the parts which make it different from the AR-15 (the semi-automatic only version of the fully automatic version)?

Shucks, the different parts you could almost make by hand, if you had the specs and were patient and fairly good with hand tools.  You should note, of course, that this was the kind of "cottage industry" which landed Randy Weaver in Federal hot water at Ruby Ridge.  He just sawed off the barrel of a shotgun, and look where that got him.  That was in 1985, under a much more 'understanding' President.  (Can you say "I must have mis-spoken", Children?  I knew you could.)

Defying the Federal Government is risky business.  They have their job to do, and they can be downright mean.

This is still a government of We The People.

Oh, I am SO going to enjoy the next 20 years of watching the Feds trying to put THIS toothpaste back into the tube!

Also reference the following:
  • pandora's box
  • can of worms
  • meme
  • gestalt theory of ideas

Monday, November 04, 2013

John Farnham and "LAX"

3 Nov 13

LAX Incident of 31 Oct 13

Last week's shooting incident at LAX blatantly illustrates (once  more):

1) "Gun-free" zones are merely imaginary, symbolic barriers. The suspect in  this case was not deterred in the least.  He was eventually stopped, but only by the liberal application of lethal force (gunfire), not by wishful thinking on the part of naive liberals, nor by "gun-free-zone" signs on glass  doors!

2) The "start-to-harm" time was so short in this case that awareness, decisiveness, and a plan for immediate and dynamic exit will likely represent your only viable options.

3) We Sovereign Citizens are increasingly being involuntarily herded into  "
enforced helplessness."  We are progressively unable to remain legally armed, and therefore we are more and more unable to effectively protect ourselves.  Put another way, we are contemptuously regarded as "disposable"  by self-righteous socialists.

4) It is painfully obvious how much protection "gun-free-zone" signs provide.  Terrorists and lunatics are really impressed, as we see!


John S. Farnam
Dtiquips mailing list
Copyright 2013 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.
It's rare that I fully quote John Farnham .. in fact, this is perhaps the first time EVER.

But when he's right (which is "USUALLY"), he's right.

And I think that his take here is entirely correct.  No 'Thinking Person" who is aware of our cultural vulnerability could find much fault in his preposition.

Still, it raises questions that we might consider.

Should Airports be "Gun Free Zones"?  As much as I have proposed that GVZ proliferation encourages madmen to attack us, I'm uncomfortable in this specific instance.

The armed officers seem to have been present, and they acted quickly and aggressively.  The result is that the attacker was  taken down in a short period of time, and from the moment which the counter-attack began, it appears that the only other victims were among the resistors.

If the airport was NOT a "Gun Free Zone", is it likely that the attack would have been curtailed earlier?  Based on the reports, I don't think so.  The attack was actually initiated BEFORE the initial screening area, and so the madman identified, recognized, attacked, and overwhelmed the First Line of Defense quickly and efficiently.

It may have been helpful that he had already researched the defenses, and was prepared for them .. which may not be said for the defenders.

The established defense may have served one  purpose; it identified an attack before the attacker could infiltrate into the "No Defense Zone", where the public was not prepared to defend itself.  Instead, ready reaction forces (policemen) were alerted and promptly reacted to the attack.

We can reasonably be confident that the initial delay, the early alert, and the available of secondary forces lead to the early take-down of the attacker, before he was able to fully attack entirely defenseless citizens.

Essentially .. no private citizens, whatever their state if preparedness, were required to defend themselves or others.  

It's likely that no better solution was available.  We regret the loss of lives in this attack, but we must recognize that we (citizens, not officers) were protected almost as well as possible.  

How could this situation have been resolved more quickly?  We probably are all asking ourselves the same question.  The best answer is ... we WERE protected, if imperfectly.  A surprise attack of this sort is almost impossible to defend against.

My personal understanding (and I'm sure there will be a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who will use hind-sight to critique the defenders) is that a lot of rough men put themselves deliberately in the way in order to prevent a greater loss of defenseless citizens.  I salute them all, as should you.


So .. what would have been the consequences if this had occurred in a shopping mall, a school, a church?

Chances are that there would have been NO first .. let alone Second .. line of defense.  The attacker would have assaulted defenseless citizens (children?) immediately, and would have run rampant.

He would have run rampant, slaughtering innocent defenseless people until (minutes or hours later) police appeared on the scene ... and then he would have killed himself.

That DOES seem to be the pattern.

The immediate solution seems to have both a first and second line of armed defense in any place of public gathering.

It's not going to happen.

Government at ANY level might semi-efficiently defend a "place" (airport, school, church, mall, etc.) but only at great expense to the tax base.  The American people are not willing, let alone able, to support this level of protection in most public areas.

LAX was fortunate, in a way, that it was so strongly defended.  And yet, still, people died there.

Insane and evil people exist.  We can't identify them until they actually attack us.  And then, it's too late for us.

The ONLY way we can defend ourselves in public areas is if the public is allowed to assume the defensive position.

No more "Gun Free Zones", please.  Allow "The People" to be armed, because we can't have armed TSA people at the front door of every school, church and shopping mall.

Or allow teachers to be voluntarily armed.  But no .. you don't want to allow guns in schools.

Allow preachers to be armed.  But no .. you don't want our spiritual leaders to be armed.

The only realistic solution to mass public murders is to allow the PUBLIC to be armed.

But no, you don't want your neighbors to be armed, either.

Okay. it appears that you are more comfortable with being murdered while shopping for a new leash for Rover, than to defend yourself.

Your choice.

For me?  I'll break the law, violated posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs, rather than to go shopping without a firearm closely at hand.

Does that offend you?

Perhaps .. until the first sharp crack of gunshots.  

Then, I imagine you will be hoping that is a shot fired in defense of you, rather than a madman shooting at you, your family, or your neighbors.