Talk:3D-printed firearm

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jseo1. Peer reviewers: Jseo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge FROM 3D printing article subsection TO this article

WITHDRAWN by proposer. See Summarize discussion below. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

INSERTING clarification: The merge proposal is to merge the Effects of 3D printing Firearms subsection (in the 3D printing article) into this (3D printed firearms) article. The merge proposal was tagged by another editor on that page on 10 NOV 2013, but not on this one at the same time, so I completed notice of the proposal today. Sorry for the confusion, or if I did it wrong. I just found it by way of an unrelated discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Inserting ping to Jarble, who originally proposed this merge. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's probably too much content on firearms in the 3D print article, but there should still be a section there of at least a para, with a {{more}} link. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's enough external interest and coverage of firearms specifically to justify this separate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Although certainly expansion of the section should go into this dedicated article, per WP:SUMMARY I think some mention of the 3d printed firearms issue does need to remain in the 3d printing main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support What's proposed - as I understand it - is not deleting the Firearms subsection from the 3D printing article. What's proposed is merging the material in that 5-paragraph, 31-citations subsection and leaving a brief, sourced summary in its stead. That subsection already has a main link to this article, indicating that this is the main article... which is where that much material belongs. Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather while your proposal may have merit, that is not what this section is discussing. Per WP:Merging is not just a trimming down of data in one of the articles. (In wiki-speak the merge leaves nothing behind at one of the locations) What you propose could be accomplished with just a discussion or RFC on the page where the trimming is to happen. As my comment above indicates, I am essentially open to your proposal, although obviously there would need to be a consensus built on which parts were to be culled, and which parts were to remain in the main 3d article. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As Stan Marsh would say, "I learned something today."  ;-) Basically, every day that I edit on WP, I learn something. Anyway, as I said at the top, the original proposal wasn't even mine. I found it when I was navigating around from another discussion (about 3D printed guns on the Gun control page?) NOW that I know that what I was thinking of as a merge in not a merge in the strict, WP sense, I can re-think my vote. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

orphan (related to Improvised firearm article)

There is a notice that says, "This article is an orphan," but the section "3D printers" in the article "Improvised firearm" links here with "Main article: 3D printed firearms". I read the guidelines for orphan articles, and it doesn't say these don't count towards being non-orphaned, as far as I know. Sorry, I'm rather new to this. I don't even know what to do on a talk page. F16falcona46 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The tag is usually added for fewer than 3 inbound links, but if you think it's already "linked as much as is justified", then go ahead and detag it. As this article has 3 links anyway: Special:WhatLinksHere/3D_printed_firearms (and surely needs one from Defense Distributed too), It's pretty moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so this is ALL above-board

TWO merge discussions are mixed together above. I am going to separate them for clarity only. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather the orphan discussion was not a merge discussion, and was resolved 2 months ago. Andy then !voted on the merge discussion, and you moved his !vote into the orphan discussion You have also moved several comments into different sections. I have restored the comments and !vote to the correct location Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

At the exact same minute that Gaijin was posting this comment, I was posting a "Help, please" discussion on his talk page re: the merge discussion(s). So we've got THAT all sorted out, no hard feelings. FYI. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Summarize discussion

This replaces previous Merge discussion. Suggesting summarizing (not merging) 3D printing Firearms section into this article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Better summary might be needed

Defense Distributed's "blueprint" for a "plastic gun" was but one of ten items the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance had a problem with...

1. Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2. .22 electric
3. 125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4. 5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5. Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6. Sound Moderator – slip on
7. "The Dirty Diane" 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8. 12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9. Voltlock electronic black powder system
10. VZ-58 sight

I.e., Why the "United States Department of State demanded that they remove the instructions from their website" should probably be explained. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere, possibly in the description, the feasibility problems with fully ABS/FLA 3D printed firearms. Perhaps the possibility of combining 3D printed pieces (ie AR15 lower) with uncontrolled off-the-shelf parts (ie uppers, barrels, etc) merits more explanation than just mentioning Defense Distributed's lower. Those unfamiliar with firearms and the surrounding laws may be unaware of the gun control implications. Jseo1 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Legal Status

The "Legal Status" section could use some work. A number of countries have passed new laws or modified existing ones to address 3D printed firearms. The UK's Home Office, for example, has updated and amended the 1968 Firearms Act to specifically address 3D printed firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseo1 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Crimes with 3D Printed Firearms

In the interest of maintaining an unbiased perspective, it would be helpful to begin compiling a list of publicly known crimes involving 3D printed firearms. IE John Zawahri Jseo1 (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Zawahiri would be in section be about misconceptions and falsehoods. John Zawahiri did not make, use or posses any 3d printed firearm or part. 3d is defined by US and global standards as *additive* process, not mill or drill down process (removal/subtractive). Zawahiri took a partially formed alunimmum billet and used 200-year-old tools and technology (a drill press, US$60 at Home Depot) to remove material until he had a functional AR-15 lower. He never used any 3d process.Explainador (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3D printed firearms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029204738/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/465236/20130507/3d-printed-gun-test-fire-defense-distributed.htm to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/465236/20130507/3d-printed-gun-test-fire-defense-distributed.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

legality in Canada

A couple of back and forth reverts on this topic recently. The question is whether an ordinary Canadian gun owner is legally allowed to 3D print a gun, provided it is of a class that you have a license to possess. (AFAIK there is nothing special about 3D printers, so this is just a general discussion about firearms manufacture in general.) In short, my understanding is that the RCMP used to say this is okay, but now they have apparently changed their minds about that.

• The old understanding is reflected here (a thread from 2014, where the poster says he talked with the RCMP):

  https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/1w8rcy/some_helpful_info_regarding_homemademachined/

• More recently, just a month ago, Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer specialized in firearms law) has said the following:

  Right now, the RCMP have said they think you need a business (manufacturing) licence. This appears to be a policy change, which appears to have resulted from 3d printers existing. I'm trying to follow up and get a copy of an official policy.

• What does the Criminal Code actually say?

  Section 99(1) makes it a crime to manufacture any class of firearm "knowing that the person is not authorized to do so" under Firearms Act or any other Canadian law or regulation.

  Note that this knowledge requirement is a bit unusual; for most crimes, your knowledge of law has no significance.

I don't have time to get to know all the relevant law, but regardless, a wikipedia article is not the place to issue fresh legal opinions. Rather we should focus on what do the reliable sources say? As with the two news articles currently cited, we can say for sure that the Canadian government does indeed believe that it's illegal to manufacture guns without a business license. Perhaps there are legal subtleties, and those have yet to be tested in court, but what is certain is this: if you are caught making a homemade gun in Canada right now, it seems certain that you will be arrested and you can look forward to an expensive legal bill, and I wouldn't be surprised if you end up imprisoned. I think it would be unethical to suggest "if you have a PAL then go ahead and make that non-restricted length pipe gun, no worries". I hope to see the following in the article:

• A reliable source on the RCMP's former stance (sadly, a reddit post won't cut it); we do have a source on their current stance.
• Possibly, a citation and/or quotation of section 99, but we can't include editor-synthesized interpretations. Interpretations need to be backed up with sources.
• Descriptions of the ongoing court cases, and hopefully we will soon see those completed (well, one completed because the guy died).

Regarding the recent edit:

• "All cited instances of Canadian prosecutions regarding the private manufacture of 3D printed firearms are cases involving illegally possessed restricted/prohibited class firearms or other controlled parts." -- False. One of this guy's charges was "Manufacturing a non-restricted firearm".
• "The Canadian Firearms Act details no specific constraint on the manufacture of a firearm for private use provided it falls within a class the manufacturer is licensed to possess." Misleading because it says nothing about "provided" or "private". Moreover, the Criminal Code is the thing you would be violating if you manufacture, and it uses the wording "whether or not for consideration" meaning it doesn't matter whether it's private.

Cheers --Nanite (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Weapons in Europe

There is a documentary available on 3D printed guns in Europe that could be used to write a section about it

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlB2QV5wVxg

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Relationship with counterfeit money

@Anastrophe: Greetings! Regarding this revert, the problem of color photocopiers and counterfeit money is analogous to that of the problem of 3D printers and guns. Some copiers have technology that detects money and munges the output. -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it's a stretch - unless you can draw a direct line between them via a reliable source, it's synthesis/OR... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: This connection is covered by news outlets like Vox [1]. See the line: This won’t stop 3D-printed guns altogether, just as governments have not been able to stop counterfeit currency or online piracy entirely. or the line An analogy is the approach taken by software programs like Adobe Photoshop to prevent people from creating counterfeit currency. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I still think it's a stretch. An analogy is...interesting, but it's just that. Certainly not enough for a 'see also', in my opinion. Why not add a 'see also' to online piracy then? It's a mention in the articles, not really a direct line. Further, there's no mention in this article of 3d printing of firearms being used to create counterfeits.cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The Vox article is a good find; I added mention of that proposal to 3D printed firearm#Effect on gun control. The analogy to online piracy is also a good one. I was thinking about mentioning digital rights management, but that's actually kind of the opposite - keeping a design from freely circulating in the first place, rather than keeping an already freely circulating design from being reproduced. But, many of the techniques discussed at Copyright infringement#Preventive measures, like watermarking, do have direct analogies, so I linked that section (from the article, not from "See also"). Yeah, gun control and anti-counterfeiting are different, but the various technologies we're talking about all fall under the umbrella of "tech that prevents illegal reproduction", specifically of freely circulating designs. Copy protection is probably the closest parent article? I'll add summaries there. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Vox is virulently anti-gun, and they make no effort to hide it. While Vox is an allowed source, articles that fall in the opinion range are to be approached with caution. A quick scan through the article shows a lot of opinion at work. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it's relevant if similarities between two technologies are pointed out in an objective piece or one that's advocating that a given tech be used or not used. The parallels are pretty self-evident, and interesting for readers to consider. -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Is it legal to 3d print guns" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Is it legal to 3d print guns has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1 § Is it legal to 3d print guns until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acharymn (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GunnarLacher.

— Assignment last updated by RuthBenander (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)