Originally Posted by Masta Squidge
And you just glossed over the entire point.
No, I didn't... You, however chose to ignore mine. I'm not going to argue with you about things that you are right about.
You can build very high quality guns at home with a manual mill and lathe. They are much more reliable, accurate, and deadly than anything you can make out of plastic with a 3D printer.
I did not mention guns.
If you intend to set up a small factory at home, a 3D printer is the last tool you would ever use for the job. The point of a factory is production.
That wasn't my point... I specifically
noted the fact that you'd be better off with a 3D printer if you were planning to make a small factory to make small changes on the fly. You can completely change your design whenever you want on the fly. For mass productioon, there are more efficient machines IF you are done with the design phase of your project. God knows anyone, with even 30 seconds experience with a 3D printer, how long it takes to print anything. Most DIYs however, end up changing a billion little things eventually in order to get the perfect prototype. For that purpose, a 3D printer is superior.
If you have to make design changes on the fly, you are a miserable excuse for an engineer in the first place anyways. Furthermore, design changes using a mill and lathe would be applied to all future builds with nothing more than a change in your basic blueprints. Changing a design on the fly is even easier using a manual tool than it is with a comparatively complex 3D model.
If you have a CNC mill and lathe, then design changes are exactly the same difficulty as they are with a 3D printer, and your argument flies out the window again.
I'm not an engineer. That aside, you should not be insulting anyone. Not everyone has an aptitude for engineering work, some have to go over models and prototypes a few thousand times to get them right. The point of a 3D printer isn't production, it's customization. If you find a fault with your prototype, you can change it. In your eyes, it's easier to change a machine, then the 3D model. That is wrong, it's always easier to change the model instead of whatever process you are using for oyur production. This is especially true for many DIYs who can simply produce anything
they want with with a 3D printer provided they have the blue prints. They do not need quantity, but variety. This is why big business is afraid of 3D printing. Why would you need to buy a mug, or a plastic container, or a many other things, when you can make them yourself? You don't even need to have a 3D printer, just know someone who has one.
"Hurr durr, people can spend thousands of dollars to build a gun that might kill one person before it falls apart." Get out of here with this nonsense. "Anyone can do it at home"...
No, you need about the same skills required to operate a manual mill and lathe as you do to set up, maintain, and run a 3D printer in the first place.
If you actually had a use for this monstrous joke of a "weapon", it has already been clearly demonstrated that a far more effective, easier to reload, and reliable weapon can be built for less than the cost of the ammunition it fires.
It is a waste of time, money, and energy to even report on this sort of thing, let alone actually purchase a 3D printer to use it just for building a crappy 1-2 shot gun.
The only possible use one could have for this would be an all plastic, single shot gun... But guess what? The bullet casing is metal anyways! There goes the crying about defeating metal detectors.
It would be far more effective to just use a plastic knife, given the inherently crap accuracy of a plastic barrel anyways. And you don't need a 3D printer for that.
On the topic of guns, it's much easier to buy parts like the barrel, stock, grip, rail, attachments, mags, ammo, and the majority of the weapon really. Quality matters with guns, but the most important part of the weapon, the reciever, can be manufactured in a 3D printer for a full auto conversion. Not that I care about full auto fire, but that is an option. Which completely breaks the law and with good reason. Fully automatic fire can be devastating in specific situations.
Originally Posted by Masta Squidge
The mistake is assuming they are using the brain in a functional manner.
Yeah, let me go spend a few grand on a 3D printer to build an inferior gun, or I can go spend maybe $1k on a semi-automatic rifle that stands just as much of a chance of making it through any reasonable security as the printed one.
Please do not insult people. The media isn't stupid. It's exploiting sensationalist headlines for a reason. You think that a reporter who's gone through University class education, went through life like you and me can't comperehend the situation? Let me make it clear, most educated people know exactly
what's going on. They simply exploit the situation in a way that benefits them.
As for 3D printing there are some real and valid concerns over the technology. You're putting it this issue on the same scale as AMD vs Nvidia when it's nothing like that.
Edited by HanSomPa - 7/28/13 at 8:16pm
Originally Posted by esp42089
Machining equipment is especially cheap since the economy tanked, machine shops are closing left and right and selling off their machines. Pick up a good used bridgeport for right around 1k and be much further ahead than with a 3d printer.
Yes, but only if you want to manufacture something relatively specific. There is a limite to how much customization you can do with a machine shop. Unlike with a 3D printer, where you can make virtually anything.
As Masta said, full auto ban is only applied to 1984 and after. It's not so much that gangs had superior firepower, as police were well known for using similar weaponry, but the amount of collateral damage that gang weapons caused. Anybody who has handled an actual firearm before knows that practiced and aimed semi-automatic fire is far superior to full auto in terms of the damage it can cause.