Tag: Wiki Weapon

The Wiki Weapon Project has already attracted its fair share of controversy. The project was put on hold earlier this year after its 3D printer was seized by the company they leased it from. Now one Congressman is calling for the renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act to counter the perceived threat of 3D printed guns.

Over the weekend, Representative Steve Israel alerted Congress to the Wiki Weapon project and correctly states that the men fired six shots from the rifle. He also correctly states that it was an AR-15 rifle assembled with parts from a 3D printer. After that, however, he’s completely off base.

Let’s first take a look at this quote from Rep. Israel at a news conference over the weekend:

“It is just a matter of time before these three-dimensional printers will be able to replicate an entire gun. And that firearm will be able to be brought through this security line, through the metal detector, and because there will be no metal to be detected, firearms will be brought on planes without anyone’s knowledge.”

He’s right. A plastic gun would be able to pass through a metal detector with no problems. The only problem is that a plastic gun is far from being a reality. It’s not a matter of time so much as it is a matter of probability. Rep. Israel neglects to mention that the Wiki Weapon team’s gun broke after the sixth shot because the one piece on the gun that was made of plastic snapped under the pressure.

To further illustrate that Rep. Israel just doesn’t get it – he says that 3D printers are a technology out of “Star Trek.” For one, 3D printers have been around for more than 20 years. It’s not a futuristic technology that’s just suddenly appeared. Secondly, 3D printers don’t just magically make things appear out of thin air like on “The Jetsons.” In reality, it’s just lawmakers continuing their time honored tradition of not understanding technology, and immediately fearing it.

It wasn’t just Rep. Israel spouting nonsense either as the Suffolk County Police Chief, James Burke, said that 3D printers could bring guns to “our children’s bedrooms, in basements and in dorm rooms.” He cites the continued decline in prices as the leading concern because children are obviously going to drop $600 on a cheap 3D printer to make a gun. The Wiki Weapon team is using an advanced industrial 3D printer that costs thousands of dollars to create their parts. The cheap desktop 3D printers can’t use the kind of plastic needed to create the parts that the Wiki Weapon team is making. Even then, the tougher plastics still break upon firing the gun.

For a moment, let’s pretend that Rep. Israel is right. Let’s pretend that 3D printers are about to bring forth the democratization of gun creation, and every child, hobbyist and dog is equipped with a rifle. How would Congress ban 3D printed guns? The only possible way is to ban 3D printers and that would not sit well with anyone considering the technology’s many uses.

In short, it’s next to impossible to stop Wiki Weapon and related projects. Congress can renew the Undetectable Firearms Act, but it can’t do anything to stop development of 3D printed guns without destroying 3D printing. In fact, the greatest threat to 3D printed guns are 3D printers. The technology has proven that it isn’t adequate just yet, and may never be.

As for the Wiki Weapon team, they’re back at the workstation trying out a new material. They say it will provide more flexibility which may preserve the lower for more than six rounds.

[h/t: Boing Boing]

Do you remember the Wiki Weapon project? It was a collection of individuals united a common banner – Defense Distributed – whose goal was to create the first fully 3D printed gun. They were inspired by the creation of a 3D printed lower receiver combined with metal parts that formed a fully working gun. They started an IndieGoGo project that was immediately shut down, but were still able to fund the initial lease of a Stratasys professional 3D printer.

Wired reports that Stratasys apparently didn’t like what the guys at Defense Distributed were doing with their printer. Once they caught wind of the Wiki Weapon project, they immediately canceled the lease and reclaimed the printer. What was the problem? Stratasys claimed Defense Distributed was breaking the law by creating a 3D printed gun.

It’s legal in the United States to make a gun in your backyard. Just like alcohol, however, you can not sell it without a license. Defense Distributed was on the right side of the law in this regard. Where they may have hit a snag is another law called the Undetectable Firearms Act which prevents the creation or sale of weapons that can not be detected by normal means. A plastic gun definitely falls into the category.

Going forward, Defense Distributed represents an important debate that needs to happen in regards to 3D printing. The technology that is 3D printing is all about the democratization of manufacturing. In a more romanticized universe, 3D printing would allow people to break from the supply and demand model by becoming their own manufacturer. Even if such a future is not particularly realistic, it still brings up the problem we’re facing today. Should 3D printing, especially when it’s being used to create items like guns, be regulated? Can you regulate it?

As of now, it looks like the companies that make 3D printers can regulate it. What happens when creators can make their own high-precision 3D printers? The Form 1 3D printer has already pulled in over $1 million on Kickstarter and shows no sign of stopping. It could easily be used to make weapon parts, and doesn’t have an over protective company regulating how its products are used.

As for Defense Distributed, the group is now working with a legal team to procure a firearms manufacturing license. In all reality, this is the best way to go for now. The team first have to prove that making a complete gun with a 3D printer is even possible. They can start worrying about regulations after that.