This is the world’s first entirely 3D-printed gun (with photo)

“Eight months ago, Cody Wilson set out to create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun,” Andy Greenberg reports for Forbes. “Now he has.”

“Early next week, Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas law student and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, plans to release the 3D-printable CAD files for a gun he calls ‘the Liberator,'” Greenberg reports. “All sixteen pieces of the Liberator prototype were printed in ABS plastic with a Dimension SST printer from 3D printing company Stratasys, with the exception of a single nail that’s used as a firing pin. The gun is designed to fire standard handgun rounds, using interchangeable barrels for different calibers of ammunition.”

Greenberg reports, “Technically, Defense Distributed’s gun has one other non-printed component: the group added a six ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act. In March, the group also obtained a federal firearms license, making it a legal gun manufacturer.”

"The Liberator," a 3D-printable handgun
“The Liberator,” a 3D-printable handgun

 
Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Staples to be first U.S. retailer to offer 3D printer to consumers – May 3, 2013
Obama tries but fails to ignite Apple and 3D printing – February 19, 2013

174 Comments

  1. This technology will continue to grow.

    While firearms are an interesting area it won’t be long before you can make replacement parts for your car at home.

  2. Another win for the Second Amendment!

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      1. Dear illogical Democrat America-Hating Dumbasses,

        As a criminal, I’m all for gun control – then only we criminals will have guns. My crime business would run so much smoother.

        1. Dear lame attempt at misplacing the blame:

          Murder is still a crime. Most murders are committed by people who know the victim, like husbands and boyfriends, whether they had a criminal past or not. So yeah, many handguns wind up in the hands of criminals no matter what.

          But I’d be perfectly happy to take all the people who feel they need to carry a concealed weapon to protect their own safety as well as the safety of others, put them all in a theater, and have someone shout out “gun”.

          1. Why are are anti gun people so violent and quick to wish harm on others? I can never figure that out. For all the talk about “saving lives” they sure seem to be limited in the lives they want saved.

            I carry a gun and honestly I HOPE I never need it.

            I dont want to see anyone hurt or killed period.

            I think of of my handgun the same way I think of my fire extinguisher – I keep it serviced and ready to go but I’ll be happy if it never sees real world use.

            1. That’s because gun grabbers are to0 stupid to know that they are stupid.

              They are incapable of thinking on their own and rely on the emotional stupidity of others.

              In order to support gun control, one must replace the fact that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent and stop crime and replace it with the fantasy that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce murders by criminals.

              Replacing fact with fantasy is a symptom of mental illness.

            2. @Really: I don’t see anything in finelinebob’s post about wanting to harm anyone. By making the assumption that people in bob’s scenario would be killed, I do see an acknowledgement in your post that guns are inherently violent. I suspect you’re projecting your own feelings onto bob.

      2. Nobody thinks the second admendmet allows children or adults for hat matter to be murdered. Make your argument deeper if you want to do more than complain. The crude way of arguing does nothing more than falsely build yourself up and requires little thought. Don’t argue like a child.

      3. “… All the guns in the world is not worth one single child. The second amendment is totally misunderstood by many. Sorry about your penis size…” – auramac (MacDailyNews Comment 5/5/13)

        Can I use this? I’m working on a paper about gun control and the simplicity of the liberal mind.

        1. It is pretty simple, isn’t it. Most American people are against killing kids. Guns are not the real point here. It is the abject failure to do anything to reduce the carnage foisted on America by the gun manufacturers and the NRA that is at issue. I think, now that we have outed the Senators who dance to the NRAs tune, we’ll see some changes. 2014 is bearing down rapidly.

          1. Nope, I’m up to about 3000 words now. Divided into two sections, a) what the gun control debate is really about, because it’s not about saving lives, and b) the tactics of liberals in the debate and how poorly conservatives are prepared to deal with such tactics (which is typical). Quoted from it a couple times here. The argument of what the life of a child is worth is complete utter insanity.

            What exactly is the life of a child worth? Is it worth all of the automobiles in the world? It’s a ludicrous statement. Is the life of a child worth more than the life of an adult? Far more children are killed by means other than guns every year. Far more. Far more people in general.

            In fact, if you look at the statistics (this is something conservatives do and liberals respond with you’re a booboo head or something and the argument ends), but if you look at the stats there are over 300,000,000 guns in this country. That is the generally accepted approximation. Every year there are 11,000 or so gun murders in this country. So it would seem that of the 300,000,000 guns in America,
            only 0.00003% are actually being used to kill people. If you add in all the accidental crap and suicides the number jumps from 11,000 to 30,000 (FBI Statistic). So you get to 0.0001%. These number are so small in light of the number of people owning guns that the perception that America is some gun crazy wild west country is clearly just a media assertion. The fact is, considering the numbers, we are quite possibly the most gun disciplined nation on the fact of the planet.

            The true question is how much is your freedom worth? How much is the fantasy of being safe from something that essentially poses you no threat worth to you?

            1. Of those 11,000 or so gun murders by the way, the FBI puts the number of gun killings with so called “assault-rifles” at less than 400. More people are killed with bats and other blunt instruments. So leftist politicians want to ban guns that are used in less than 0.04% of violent crimes? That makes you feel better? 0.0000013% of all the guns in the country?

              Where is the epidemic of gun violence? How will limiting magazine capacity change these already infinitesimal numbers? It won’t, and there is no epidemic.

              The point being this is not about saving lives. This is politics pure and simple. It is about the impassioned conflict between the political right and left of America. This might surprise you if you’re politically naive and you don’t understand America. Otherwise you probably already know, gun control is one of the primary focal points in the struggle for what America is to become. Will she become statist, authoritarian, and oppressive or will she cling to her roots of minimal-government, libertarianism, individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms?

              This is the underlying debate. Will the Constitution continue to protect citizens from a government run amok or will people like Barrack Obama and Mayor Bloomberg of New York destroy it.

              The Constitution is a “flawed document.” – Barrack Obama

              “And our laws and our Constitution I think have to change”- Mayor Bloomberg

              Those people and that thinking scares me more than 300,000,000 guns.

            2. Your 11,000 or so gun murders number conveniently forgets the rest of the gun violence – the violence (some serious, some less) that leaves people alive but injured or maimed. For every 2.75 murders by gun in the US, there are about 40 robberies and 40 assaults where guns are used. In 2011, around 100,000 people were injured in the US by guns. And the point about assault weapons is that they are capable of killing many people in a short period of time and are designed for no other purpose. Taking those away or limiting magazine size reduces the risk of that type of massacre and does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
              But nothing you wrote is in any way relevant to the issue of background checks. When “rights” compete (your right to own weapons, other people’s right to live), a balance must be found. Gun buyers and owners filling out a piece of paper is a very small price to pay compared with losing the right to live. Yet the NRA loonies would have you think the complete opposite – the radio host who said the Newtown families should just “deal with it” because him having to go through a background check to buy a gun was a bigger tragedy than what they suffered.
              People who think the Constitution is set in stone are the people who scare me. People who think that the founding fathers could see so far into the future to understand how what they wrote would affect lives today. People who think that the founding fathers were completely perfect and wrote a perfect document for eternity. People who think that introducing more lethal weapons into one of the western world’s most violent will somehow make everyone safer. Aren’t 300 million guns enough? And let’s remember that the guy who has made this printable gun is a self described anarchist. Why do his rights trump 100,000 other people every year?
              Oh – and your Obama diss regarding his comment about the constitution being flawed? He was talking about the constitution’s approval of slavery. See any flaws there?

            3. I do believe you have very valid arguments. I don’t dispute that but you can make them without disparaging a group of people who you disagree with probably by only a matter of degrees or underlying philosophy.

      1. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals in the face is just a side benefit.

        The sooner you Libs figure that out, the better.

        The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is helpless. Change that and you’ll have fewer mass killings.

        1. I guess you figure the ballot box hasn’t been working too well for you. You do recognize that Seal Team Six will be on our side. Good luck with that.

            1. The Constitution provides for the selection of our government by voting, not force of arms. As long as we are selecting through the ballot box, the majority of the people are getting what they believe to be the government they want. We have been successful at that for over 200 years. So far, so good. Some of us are adult enough to recognize that we won’t get everything just the way we want it right now, but we’re sure not going to let some buffoon with a gun take what progress we’ve made away. It will be the less than 20% of the clingers and thumpers against everyone else.

              As long as we select the government by the ballot box, you don’t have any basis for complaint. If you don’t like what’s going on, develop a platform with majority support and ride to victory on that.

              Nothing in this statement should be construed as a liberal position. It’s actually quite conservative. Insurrection against the government is never a conservative position. It’s actually treason.

            2. let me know when there is a states vote on repealing the Second Amendment, as Constitutionally that is the only way it is no longer law. Obama Messiah’s “executive order” campaign to infringe it is outright treason, an impeachable offense.

            3. I guess infringe means different things to different people. There are always balances to be sought. I think the infringement on the “inalienable right to life” of those kids at Sandy Hook tilted a little too far toward no control of guns.

              To quote noted Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the topic of gun control: “Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”

            4. spare me your vacillating, mealy-mouth jibba-jabba, the Second Amendment is lucidly and concisely written. Like Prohibition, there is only one way to repeal a constitutional amendment.

            5. Over 22,000 gun laws on the books in the U.S.

              More law enforcement will certainly help.

              However, no law in or of itself, can prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing.

              If laws worked 100%, we would close down prisons, layoff judges and prosecutors and have little need for police and lawyers.

              For the rest of eternity, in a split second, a law abiding citizen somewhere will disobey the law, commit a crime and become a criminal.

              No law or limits, will prevent that from happening completely …

            6. I’ll be sure and forward your critique to James Madison, I’m sure your most learned evaluation of his work will come as an epihany to him and the rest of the gang in Philly.

            7. OBTW, did we screw up when we didn’t impeach Bush I? In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. It’s a simple thing to override an Executive Order, pass legislation that addresses the issue in a manner Congress deems more suitable.

            8. The Founders wrote and discussed a whole lot more that the last 14 words of one Amendment to the Constitution. They may be the most important to you, but not everyone and I doubt they were the most important to the Founders.

            9. Just to save time, you’re not worth the bandwidth. You can’t respond in an interesting way and you’re not smart enough to get under my skin. Bye-bye.

            10. not really, the making of fascist America has been without any true deviation in parties (practice not rhetoric) since the election of a former CIA chief as president of the United States.

          1. Leftists suggest that the argument is silly because an armed citizenry is incapable of fighting off the United States Armed Forces. This is ironic considering how many times we’ve seen asymmetric warfare confound what is arguably the greatest fighting force on the planet. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, we have seen that a massive conventional force is often stalled and forced into a war of attrition by guerrilla or insurgent tactics. A completely unarmed citizenry, on the other hand, has no such power to defend itself.

            1. Your argument is fatally flawed. Small militias succeed because their opponents must spend a significant amount on resources (supplies, bringing in hardware and personnel etc) that, if disrupted long enough, will lead to victory of sorts at some point. They also know the terrain involved in the conflict better than their opposition does (Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan). The American government wouldn’t have to overcome any supply and local info disadvantages if they were fighting on their own soil.
              Their superior firepower will always win against gun happy groups of citizens intent on taking the administration on. See ‘Waco Seige’ for details.

            2. So THAT’S why the Iranian military was able to fight off the Islamist popular uprising! I had always wondered how Iran remained a pro-Western semi-democracy, and not a theocratic Islamist state. It must be that the superior firepower of the military will always win against gun-happy groups of citizens intent on taking on the administration.

              Right?

        2. If only a Jackass like you were oppressed. Must be those oppressors trying to take away your gun and regulate the noise pollution coming out of your mouth (Sorry, forgot about your head being relocated), I mean ass.

        3. You may have guns, rifles and grenades, but the US military has everything else. – Bill Maher

          There is no such thing as defending yourself against an oppressive government. That is a fallacy. As we saw in Boston, if they want you, they will get you.

          We are all on the same side. Leave the Second Amendment alone, it makes no difference. However lets keep guns away from people who are ineligible, and as bad as this may sound, let’s take them away from people who “become” ineligible.

    1. Yes you are right on. Now patriots will be able to get thru airport security with a gun. Lot of brave malitia guys have quit flying because they feel naked without a gun. Of course bad guys too might also be on board. It will be like the old west again.
      And this is about Apple how?

      1. They added metal to the gun to have it be detectable by metal detectors.

        This is a technology interest piece, which MDN published from time to time.

        1. Yes THEY added metal. But YOU don’t have to unless you want a license or to get cought. This looks to be as stupid as Google glasses. Another technology that we do not need.

            1. botvinnik is outdoing himself with his insults and puerile name calling today. Just more evidence of his’ complete intolerance of anyone who doesn’t agree him.

    2. Here’s the best explanation of assault weapons and high capacity magazines ever made:

      Really shows the stupidity of those that support firearms bans

        1. According to a report from NBC, Adam Lanza used 4 handguns They went on to say that NO so-called, “assault weapon” was used to commit his heinous act.

          Sadly, Obama and his minions in the Congress and elsewhere used the Newtown tragedy to rekindle an agenda the left has been pushing for decades.

          Guns have always been widely available in America, yet mass shootings in public places are a relatively new phenomenon. A sincere person would have given more than lip service to address the problems of a society that has clearly lost its moral compass; especially young people.

          Ever notice most of the mass murders have been committed by young people? Maybe it’s time to regulate the youth of America. Clearly, they are not responsible enough to be let out into society without supervision.

          In more recent news… a 17 year old punched a referee in the head. The referee later died.

      1. People want to ban assault weapons with laws based on (a) number of bullets in a single clip and (b) semi-automatic to automatic or firing rates. We only want bans based on a weapons potential functionality in the context of mass murder – we could not care less about a weapon’s cosmetic dick overcompensating features. We care that every time a gunner changes clips is an opportunity for someone to take him down. The fewer bullets per second a gun can fire, the lower probability of dead children in countless real world scenarios.

        If you need a semi-automatic high capacity assault rifle to hunt deer, then you really fucking suck at hunting deer – let’s be real here, the only non-murderous reason anyone owns a gun like that is because it’s “cool.” – the right to own things that are cool is not in the Constitution – but the rights to life, liberty, freedom, justice, and every other right a bullet can instantly take away from you are in the Constitution. Nine bullets at a time is plenty for hunting and self-defense, and it significantly limits the number gunshot wounds a madman can inflict per minute. So fuck you, fuck your guns, fuck the salesmen representatives of the NRA, and a big fuck you to the cowards in Congress too fucking scared to act on what they know is right. Fuck all you and your damn killing machines.

          1. 🙂 You’re afraid of me unloading my quiver, eh, bob?

            There’s practical reasons why I don’t want to have children – but I’ll make a special deposit at the sperm bank just for you.

        1. As the video demonstrates, there is no functional difference between guns that would be outlawed and guns that would still be legal. So what would such legislation accomplish, in your mind? Would it reduce the rate of fire? No. Would it reduce magazine capacity? No. Would it reduce the lethality of the cartridge used? No. So exactly what would your legislation accomplish except to make you feel good?

          It was demonstrated in the video that magazines can be changed in a fraction of a second. How does magazine size, then, make any practical difference? Nobody is going to tackle a shooter in .5 seconds.

          As for hunting, semi-automatic weapons have been used for over 100 years in hunting, particularly where there are multiple targets appearing together, as in duck hunting, quail hunting, and coyote hunting. The latter being what most hunters use an AR type rifle for.

          Your ignorance of the subject is surpassed only by your willingness to make asinine assumptions based on nothing more than your feelings. It’s telling that you are the one bringing penis size to the argument, and then going on to brag about your non-breeding status and your ability to make sperm donations. Preoccupied with manhood issues, are we?

          1. What a weird and off base reply. A law reducing the maximum magazine capacity WOULD reduce magazine capacities. Reducing magazine capacities would require more reloads, and since reloads are never instant, less bullets that can fired per minute. I think you (and the video) are getting too hung up on the label “assault weapon” – that you just fail at arithmetic.

            The split second it takes a killer to replace a clip can be all a cop needs to get a clear shot on him or all a bystander needs to rush and tackle him. Split seconds have enormous consequences in life or death shoot outs. Also, a split second is an ideal quickest reload possible – in real life, every reload has the potential to turn into dropped ammunition or a weapon fumble – which can be critical events in ending a massacre.

            I’m not interested gun laws that don’t reduce gun lethality in real world situations – I’m not aware of any gun control legislation like that and it doesn’t make sense on the face of it (an NRA fiction maybe?). Desirable gun laws, such as a reasonable maximum limit on magazine capacity, do reduce gun lethality in real world situations. Anything that fails this objective is not what I’m talking about.

            1. Gcaptain, you speak like someone knows nothing about guns, does not do any research and can not learn.

              Tell me how cops and citizens jumped the VA Tech and Columbine shooters during reloads. They all used 10-round magazines and had 13-17 of them.

    3. Fwhatever, if it were possible to 3-D “print” explosives, such as grenades, would you be in favor of that, as well? How about printing land mines? Those would be effective in keeping that communist/socialist government away from your property. Are there any limits to this madness? Where does it end?

      I happen to like high-quality guns. They are finely designed and crafted pieces of machinery that are sometimes elevated to works of art, from a mechanical standpoint. When used for their proper purposes, they are also highly useful and entertaining tools. However, the mindless, extremist position of the NRA against any form of gun control is unfathomable to many of us. It is also counter-productive to your cause, because it makes the gun coalition appear to be unreasonable and unwilling to compromise. From my viewpoint, those are probably not the best character qualities for a gun owner.

      I can think of no right in the Constitution that is exercised without limit. Each right of the individual must be balanced with the rights of others. In cases where these rights conflict, there must be compromise. Times have changed. In 1781, guns were not that accurate and had a slow rate of fire. Sure, you could potentially carry multiple guns, but there were practical limits to the damage that you could do. In modern times, there are readily available weapons that will pump out hundreds of rounds per minute and can be rapidly reloaded. We also have a much larger population and great concentrations of people living in cities and gathering at major events. The balance of power has changed and an individual armed with rapid-fire semi-automatic or automatic weapons fed by huge, interchangeable magazines can deal out terrible destruction – potentially more damage than a small army could create just a couple of hundred years ago.

      Any reasonable person should be willing to consider these facts and work with others to revise federal laws to balance the rights of the gun owners/supporters with the right of every citizen not to get shot.

      Universal background checks? That should have been enacted decades ago. There is no excuse for not making even a token effort to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged or the criminal.

      A national registry of weapons? In my opinion that, too, should have been enacted decades ago. I know that will result in a huge backlash in this forum, but the rampant paranoia against a gun registry does not mean that it is the wrong thing to do. There are more rules governing the ownership of a car or a boat than a gun. The government knows the VINs of my cars and I have to have a license and insurance to legally drive them. All that you need to own a gun and a large supply of ammunition is a few hundred dollars.

      Based on a preponderance of data, you and your loved ones are more likely to be shot (intentionally or accidentally) by the guns that you own than by an armed intruder. That does not mean that people should not own guns, but it certainly contradicts some of the rhetoric and anecdotes promoting unfettered gun ownership rights on the basis of personal safety. Of more concern to me is the chance that a member of my family might be shot by one of your weapons – whether in your hand or in the hand of a family member or friend who grabbed it during an emotional crisis, or by a criminal who stole it from you.

        1. I’d support an intelligence test to qualify for gun ownership. Seems like the best concept I’ve heard out of the gun totin’ wing recently. They used to support background checks, but they changed their mind on that. Intelligence testing would absolutely cure the problem.

      1. Well stated. People who argue against sensible gun regulations tend to ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment and focus on the ending. Pity.

    4. Do you want to sit next to a person with one of these on an airplane? How about your children if you have some? The chances of this happening are rising, particularly with plastic guns.

    5. in civilised countries it is illegal to kill someone for any reason
      self defence doesn’t exist as it does in the USA.
      if you shot someone you would be in court for many offences no matter what the circumstances.
      30000 firearm deaths in the USA last year
      israel next highest with 270 firearm deaths
      something wrong in the USA!!

    1. Uh oh, the gun manufacturers are gonna poop their pants. There goes all their profit could be the worst thing to happen to their lobbyists, aka the NRA.

    1. BLN, I think you’ll find it’s the neocons who are proposing most of the “banning” in this country, from birth control, to same sex marriage, to women’s reproductive choice, to non-existing sharia law, to social security, to medicare, to school lunch programs, to pre-natal care for the poor, to banning the destruction of guns purchased in a buy-back program intended to get them off the streets, and on and on… I keep hearing them shout about freedom, but I mostly see the opposite ideas coming from their mouths… just a casual observation.

      Not sure what any of this has to do with Apple, btw…

    2. Well, if it only saves one child…never mind that cars kill children, knives kill children, crossing streets kills children, medicine bottles kill children, cribs kill children, pillows kill children, etc.

      1. Problem – guns kill children.
        chrish1961’s solution – Don’t do a single thing to make any child safer – because other things can also kill children

        Do you have an idea how crazy that sounds? What if we applied the exact same logic to murder in general?

        Problem – murder kills people
        chrish1961’s (simulated) solution – don’t do a single thing to prevent murder – don’t arrest or incarcerate murderers or even have murder be illegal – because people can die from many other ways.

        Your logic is fucking insane.

      2. Funny that you mention cars, which require registration and a competency test. Funny that you mention street crossings, which are fairly regularly monitored. Funny that you mention medicine bottles, which are generally designed to be difficult for children to open for that very reason. Cribs, equally regulated, should a poor design lead to the harm or death of a child, guess what? recall.

        You’re a halfwit on your best day, boyo.

    1. Yeah, but I wonder how much those “ink” cartridges will cost, and how many you’ll have to go through to make a set of Legos… might not really be cheaper in the end, unless you only need a missing piece or two to replace a lost one.

    2. COst would have to come down to less than about $0.10 per piece to be price competitive with Lego. And that would have to include the cost of the printer. Maybe once 3Dprinter prices drop and inexpensive ABS stock is easily available, but not now.

  3. Getting back to the actual subject of the article:
    How many rounds can be fired before this gun either overheats and warps or blasts its own barrel into ribbons of plastic?

    Or course, the material used to ‘print’ the gun will dictate the results, as well as the design. However, with current materials available for 3D printers, I suspect these are something close to ‘one time use’ guns.

  4. It is only going to take a natural disaster not seen in modern times to hit the US and marial law to inspire the smallest of minds with greed in thier hearts and blood in thier eyes to engineer the fall of Rome. That is why your lovley ad trusting Goverment has ordered Millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and thousands of anti personel tanks for the Police. Look it up there was even footage of the longest goods train with the small tanks on it on the net 3 weeksago. What most miss is it is not the size of the gun but the type of bullet, if I were a gun owner and had to compare dick sizes I would be using uranium tiped tank busters.
    Good luck and Gods Speed

  5. I’m am so glad I live in a country where only serious criminals and police have guns.

    You Americans can be a scary bunch sometimes. As long as you are shooting each other with these things I couldn’t care less, but what this is doing is extending your 2nd amendment to anyone in the world with an internet connection. It’s not needed or wanted and the sheer arrogance on display here is breathtaking.

    1. I live in a country (UK) where even the police are not routinely armed. We use the ballot box to rid ourselves of governments we don’t like, not guns. It’s called civilisation.

        1. It’s been over three centuries since the will of the People overcame autocratic monarchy in the Glorious Revolution. Since then the monarchy have simply been symbols.

            1. Still living in the past I see.

              I’ll let you in on a secret. I know you guys have been conditioned from a young age to believe that the American way is the only way, but it isn’t. No one else is looking at America and feeling jealous. You guys can keep your debt, your guns, your shitty beer and your “freedom”. No one else wants it. We are content to just watch on in mild horror as you dickheads shoot each other.

            2. Visit Britain, the UK’s main tourism body, says the country is losing billions of pounds in tourist revenue due to its expensive and difficult to navigate visa system. Visit Britain believes that easing UK visitor visa rules “could deliver £2.8bn extra from tourism”.

              Foreign tourism is worth £18bn a year to the UK economy and is the country’s third largest generator of foreign income. Prime Minister David Cameron has urged tourism leaders to do more to attract foreign visitors.

            3. Sorry mate, I’m not going to bite. I stopped arguing with retards on the internet when I was 14.

              Nice troll work though, you’ve stuck right to the playbook. Draw some people out with a ridiculous statement, bring semantics into play and then commence the ad hominem barrage. 14 year old me would have been proud.

  6. jeez you Yanks are sad such importance placed on guns , the rest of the world thinks you should stop believing hollywood and your gun lobby !

    It’s a shame this tech forum wasn’t applauding a positive innovation of this new printer!

    1. Not too many here give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

      You’re all just potential customers or terrorists, and faceless ones at that.

      Maybe you should try relevance. Then your opinions will matter.

      1. You’ll start to care a lot as china eats you for breakfast economically. They hold about 1.6 trillion in your treasury notes. Pop that lot on the market all at once and your dollar will collapse. Time to grow up and realise that we are all in this together.

      2. Boats seems to be an agent provocateur from al-Qaida seeding hate against the USA. If not, he behaves like what the world calls a “dirty American”. But is there any difference?

  7. “The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is helpless. Change that and you’ll have fewer mass killings.”

    By that reasoning, other industrialized western nations, where guns are dramatically less available, should be veritable killing zones.

    In fact, such countries have gun death rates way below the US.

    And the country that in recent times made much tougher gun laws (Australia) immediately saw a huge drop in mass killings.

    @ filipe carlos
    Well said. I’d also like to point out that the right wing hardly uttered a peep as a number of other constitutional freedoms have been trampled or eliminated — this being dramatically so with the “freedom-loving” Bush, but continued with Obama. For some reason they totally FREAK about the gun thing.

  8. What seems to be missing is the enforcement of the “well regulated militia” section. Congress should clearly specify the regulations that obtain once someone buys a gun and thereby enters into that militia.

    1. Clearly you are not smart enough to do your own research and learn the meaning of the term militia in the time that the Constution was written. You should ask a fifth grader to help you.

        1. you forgot to tell him your usual “fuck off”, Seamus.

          hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē| noun ( pl. hypocrisies )

          the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

          ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part,’ from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend,’ from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge.’

          1. My “fuck off” is not “usual”. I don’t use name calling or swearing with people who I simply disagree with — unlike yourself. I use it only with rare individuals who seem addicted to spouting poisonous insults and to denigrating and personally insulting anyone who is stating anything you disagree with. So specially for you, botvijerk – Fuck off.

    1. Registration varies by state. In my state there is no registration for firearms. There is no law against me meeting you in a parking lot and giving you a gun for cash – I don’t even need to see your ID or know your name.

      Background checks are handled at gun stores only on a federal level, some states have checks and registration for private citizens.

      Where I live I can also open carry legally. Strap a holster on my side and carry my gun in public and its legal. I have a concealed carry license personally so I keep a shoulder holster under my jacket.

        1. I support background checks, such as the existing NICS system. I’m hesitant to extend checks to ‘mental health’ because that seems like a hard thing to define.

          I’m 100% against registration. We had police going door to door taking guns during Hurricane Katrina and then a New York newspaper started publishing the addresses of gun owners in New York a few months back. I can’t support a system that can be abused like that or open me up to targeting by a hate group.

          I do not believe that guns are dangerous to society as a whole. If you have a gun violence problem then you ultimately have more serious problems that need to be addressed. People don’t just shoot others for no reason, there is a catalyst for that kind of behavior be it economic or otherwise.

          While I have a gun and carry a gun I think of it as a weapon of last resort. There are far better ways to solve 99% of the problems a person will encounter in life.

          I do however believe in the people’s right to bear arms.

    2. Federal law clearly states that if you manufacture your own weapon, no license, serial number, or paperwork is required. The same applies to 80% receivers. No FFL transfer required.

            1. And those who wrongly use a weapon should be held accountable. Unfortunately, that is not the case. According to FBI statistics, in 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. Of those, only 62 cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction. Wow! Now there’s a record the federal and state governments can truly be proud of.

              Federal and state governments need to make committing a crime with a weapon something to be truly feared by anyone contemplating such an act (like they did in Richmond, VA). When they do that, things will change.

            2. If there is no law that requires me to register my automobile (there are laws for the registration of vehicles), why would I register a weapon. A right is un-a-lien-able (nothing to do with an alien). A privilege is not. If you choose to surrender your rights because that’s what you’v been told your entire life, then so be it. I follow the rule of law, not the rule of men.

            3. “According to FBI statistics, in 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. Of those, only 62 cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.”

              13 convictions? Stellar statistic. /s

              In simple terms — you do not register a constitutional right.

              Believe the Richmond law was the result of a NRA initiative to lock up criminals if they were convicted using guns in a crime called ‘Project Exile.’

              Agree, we need more laws that increase penalties for crimes committed with a gun. In addition, shooters that kill large numbers of innocent people in public face stiffer penalties and swift justice.

              Quote from the Arapahoe County prosecutor, “Justice is death.”

              Bottom line: the one-two combination of laws and enforcement will do more to deter gun toting criminals than words and numbers in a database.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.