Britain updates rules banning 3D-printer guns

[JerryMungo]

And since technology is evolving no doubt one will be able to assemble a 3D printer soon enough with off the shelf parts.

Yes, we've been able to assemble printers, plotters and all in one machines from shelf parts for years
:wtf:

Yeah but one can hijack a plane with 100ml+ of fluid or else we'd be allowed to bring bottled water onto the plane. You don't need a gun. You don't need any special training. Those 911 guys were not elite martial arts or commando guys.

You're trying to convince me that you don't need a gun if you have a bomb? I'm not arguing that lol. Or are you telling me that liquids are banned for good reason? Not sure. The 9/11 attackers were all trained. They were attacking a civilian target so don't have to be elite commandos.

Guns do allow weak people to protect themselves from strong ones. But a strong person or a person armed with a "bomb" or a reasonably organised group of weak assailants armed with bread knives took down 4 planes on 911.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
There are a bunch of factors here - organised and trained. Some were hired specifically to overpower the crew and pilots. Not sure what makes you say they were weak.

Yeah, but that's because their society is different. They never had the high level of gang violence one sees in LA, San Francisco or Detroit. Most gun owners in USA are low risk and illegal weapons can and do enter through the porous border with Mexico. I don't see weapons coming in from France across the Channel or Scotland. Brits are probably also easier to disarm. British police would probably cr-p themselves if they had to come up against these gang bangers in the States.

I think you watch too much TV. Just saying

 

[Space_Chief]

Yes, we've been able to assemble printers, plotters and all in one machines from shelf parts for years
:wtf:

Actually enthusiasts assemble all sorts of things. Here's one site from 2011.
http://reprapbook.appspot.com/

You're trying to convince me that you don't need a gun if you have a bomb? I'm not arguing that lol. Or are you telling me that liquids are banned for good reason? Not sure. The 9/11 attackers were all trained. They were attacking a civilian target so don't have to be elite commandos.

I'm telling you that you don't need a gun. The 911 people proved it. Of course guns help, duh, but airline security has been screening for guns for decades.

Exactly they don't have to be elite commandos and they did it all without guns. Thanks for agreeing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
There are a bunch of factors here - organised and trained. Some were hired specifically to overpower the crew and pilots. Not sure what makes you say they were weak.

So millions wasted every year on security and stupid rules because there is no threat at all posed by liquids. > 100ml of fluid is scary. And by now most travelers also know this.

Of course they were weak individually and collectively. They weren't much better than the average male passenger.

I think you watch too much TV. Just saying

Whatever. Look up "Hood Life Volume 3" on YouTube. Just only if you're over 18 and not offended by violence/bad language. Visit some of the Trauma units around JHB, Durban and Cape Town on Friday and Saturday nights too.

 

[JerryMungo]

Actually enthusiasts assemble all sorts of things. Here's one site from 2011.
http://reprapbook.appspot.com/

I think you'll find that that's a little more effort than it's worth... hence it's only being done by enthusiasts.

I'm telling you that you don't need a gun. The 911 people proved it. Of course guns help, duh, but airline security has been screening for guns for decades.

Sure, you can do it with a brick, but you're a bit more likely to fail. Very few people would attempt hijacking an airliner with a brick. Non metal guns are a much bigger risk and can be concealed in your pocket without alerting metal detectors.

Exactly they don't have to be elite commandos and they did it all without guns. Thanks for agreeing.

Nope, you said they were weak assailants with bread knives. I said you got it wrong. You do know the first victim of the 9/11 attacks was Danny Lewin, who served in the most elite counter-terrorism unit of the Israel Defence Force. He had his throat slit taking them on.

So millions wasted every year on security and stupid rules because there is no threat at all posed by liquids. > 100ml of fluid is scary. And by now most travelers also know this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8242479.stm
It's out there, do some research.

Of course they were weak individually and collectively. They weren't much better than the average male passenger.

How do you know this then?

Whatever. Look up "Hood Life Volume 3" on YouTube. Just only if you're over 18 and not offended by violence/bad language. Visit some of the Trauma units around JHB, Durban and Cape Town on Friday and Saturday nights too.

I've done my fair share of civil defence volunteer work at our local ambulance service attending to 10 or so assault cases a shift on weekends (one vehicle). I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[Space_Chief]

I think you'll find that that's a little more effort than it's worth... hence it's only being done by enthusiasts.

There's a heck of a lot of enthusiasts doing it. And my point still stands. Such printers can be made and they can one day be made to print guns.
Lots of people on this forum build stuff using Raspberry Pis or Arduinos. It won't be difficult to build such printers if the real thing is banned and you want to print contraband with them. Just look at the booze trade during the prohibition or the drug trade now. But if you say printing guns is not worth it for criminals then good for you. It's nice how you subjectively judge what is worth it and what's not worth it and dismiss these things with just handwaves.

Sure, you can do it with a brick, but you're a bit more likely to fail. Very few people would attempt hijacking an airliner with a brick. Non metal guns are a much bigger risk and can be concealed in your pocket without alerting metal detectors.

And unarmed guys did it and did not fail. So some plots can fail, others will not fail. So what? No one said it was a piece of cake. Just that it was done; and resulted in two wars, and changed the history of air travel. Duh.

Nope, you said they were weak assailants with bread knives. I said you got it wrong. You do know the first victim of the 9/11 attacks was Danny Lewin, who served in the most elite counter-terrorism unit of the Israel Defence Force. He had his throat slit taking them on.

That still does not make them not weak.
Which just shows how even easy it is for ordinary people to take over a plane without guns. Thanks for proving my point. Maybe Mr Israel Defence Force's training was not so good or maybe training is overrated? Empirical facts show that these weak non-professionals managed to take over several planes loaded with passengers without guns. Currently the world lives in fear of >100ml of liquid in carry on luggage. There are whole body scanners being deployed to find the tiniest weapon or explosive device.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8242479.stm
It's out there, do some research.

Well no kidding. You can take over a plane with liquid. You don't even need a gun. Duh.

How do you know this then?

Because they were not professionally trained fighters. And I don't think any commando unit would bet their lives on doing that sort of thing without guns and far more elite training.
There were many more passengers and crew than them. 76 passengers and 8 non-pilot crew. Assuming only a third of the passengers were able bodied men, that's still a ratio of 5:1. If you can bluff you have a bomb, you're half way there.

Look you're just arguing in circles. I'm going to drop this because I'm wasting time with you. Point stands that without guns one can change the history of air travel and start two local wars. Sure it's easier with guns in some situations, but that's not the argument anyone was arguing against.

 

[JerryMungo]

There's a heck of a lot of enthusiasts doing it. And my point still stands. Such printers can be made and they can one day be made to print guns.

Absolutely, but only illegally in Britian. They now have a legal system to prosecute those who do it. Why take that away?

Lots of people on this forum build stuff using Raspberry Pis or Arduinos. It won't be difficult to build such printers if the real thing is banned and you want to print contraband with them. Just look at the booze trade during the prohibition or the drug trade now. But if you say printing guns is not worth it for criminals then good for you. It's nice how you subjectively judge what is worth it and what's not worth it and dismiss these things with just handwaves.

3D printers can be purchased, they're not banned.

And unarmed guys did it and did not fail. So some plots can fail, others will not fail. So what? No one said it was a piece of cake. Just that it was done; and resulted in two wars, and changed the history of air travel. Duh.

No one said it was impossible to do without a gun. Duh.

That still does not make them not weak.
Which just shows how even easy it is for ordinary people to take over a plane without guns. Thanks for proving my point. Maybe Mr Israel Defence Force's training was not so good or maybe training is overrated? Empirical facts show that these weak non-professionals managed to take over several planes loaded with passengers without guns. Currently the world lives in fear of >100ml of liquid in carry on luggage. There are whole body scanners being deployed to find the tiniest weapon or explosive device.

I think you live in fear of everything.

Well no kidding. You can take over a plane with liquid. You don't even need a gun. Duh.

Really? With your deodorant? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Because they were not professionally trained fighters. And I don't think any commando unit would bet their lives on doing tha sort of thing without guns and far more elite training.
There were many more passengers and crew than them. 76 passengers and 8 non-pilot crew. Assuming only a third of the passengers were able bodied men, that's still a ratio of 5:1. If you can bluff you have a bomb, you're half way there.

Look you're just arguing in circles. I'm going to drop this because I'm wasting time with you. Point stands that without guns one can change the history of air travel and start two local wars. Sure it's easier with guns in some situations, but that's not the argument anyone was arguing against.

Come back to why would you want to print a gun in the first place. Don't say self defence.