Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[Rapscallion]

Yay, the site works again >.>

Sorry - the host had to move the cluster we were on at short notice. Should have been a five minute job. Apparently it wasn't :/

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

And that's to say nothing of desktop 3D printing. Last year, it was big news when one guy developed a functional rifle receiver and put the plans out there on the internet (For those not savvy in gun terminology, the receiver is basically the one essential element to the gun). This year, another guy used his 3D printer to make a fully functional one-shot gun. A few years back, 3D printers that could use metal instead of plastic were introduced to the market, and while those are still prohibitively expensive, the price drops with each passing year. It'll only be a few years before someone is capable of easily making guns in the comfort of his living room, at the push of a button.

Don't even need to wait for 3D metal printers to become common/cheap. I wonder how long it'll be before someone takes the plans for the functional receiver, then scales them using a shrink rule (no doubt adding a marking, such as "Single Shrink AL" to a non-critical surface) and posts the results to the net. There's no reason a printer that can make plastic parts can't also make wax parts, and lost wax casting (a way of making "one off" precision castings) is a lot easier than machining parts from billet stock.

Yes, but guns are not an inexpensive item and not one easily made in your own home. Not yet anyway. Give 3D printing another 5-10 years of technological development and things might get ugly.

Ever heard of the British STEN gun? It (among others) was designed to be easily made in a home workshop environment by members of the resistance in occupied Europe. I'm sure drug gangs can find someone who's "good with tools".

[Gravekeeper]

Ever heard of the British STEN gun? It (among others) was designed to be easily made in a home workshop environment by members of the resistance in occupied Europe. I'm sure drug gangs can find someone who's "good with tools".

That's not what it was designed for. That's what it ended up being used for. It was designed to rapidly re-arm the British because the Americans couldn't get them enough guns fast enough. It was also somewhat notorious for accidentally going off.

Yes, they could built such a thing with a small workshop. Though it has liability concerns. But again, it makes it more difficult, time consuming and costly. Its economics. You can come up with "Yeah, but" scenarios till the cows come home. But each step that forces another "Yeah, but" scenario adds another layer of logistics and cost reducing supply and increasing the cost of the end product. Cutting into their bottom line.

Additionally, in regards to the general safety of the public, organized crime is not the big problem. The big problem is idjits with cheap guns. Organized crime largely shoots at itself and occasionally hits a bystander. Idjits and lunatics that buy a gun off the street for $40 then end up shooting someone as they knock off a 7/11 or shoot up a mall are more dangerous. Because they're unpredictable.

Say what you want about organized crime, but at least its relatively predictable.

[Tanasi]

The STEN much like the US M3 Grease gun was designed as such to be mass produced cheaply as well as quickly. Other than the barrel and bolt it was stamped steel and welded together.
The Sterling was more complicated and the M1-Thompson was slow and expensive to make.
There were several version of the M3 and was simplified over the years, mine is a MK1 and my brother has a MKIII. Mine has more parts and they are almost totally seperate guns.
The M3 was still issued to tankers as personal weapons as late as the Kuwait War. I remember because they were low on magazines and .45acp ammo. The crews were looking forward to humping their M3s as well as a Ma-Duce if they got their horses shot out from under them.