[fisk]

I could be wrong because what do I know about guns, but when I see these I-made-a-gun stories, I'm really irritated because 1. it seems like the action of someone who began with "What is the easiest thing that I could do that would get the most media attention?" 2. when an important technology is young, it is so irresponsible to stoke fears for selfish reasons in the populace or abet politicians and pundits doing the same.

[jacquesm]

A lot of 3D printing is like JavaScript: See, I can do 'X' with JavaScript, where 'X' in JavaScript is not better or even a proper application of the technology, but it is new to the maker and it is new to their audience.

Making a gun from plastic was doable for many years (various epoxys, simple casts) so no news there, in principle.

But making a gun (or a whole bunch of them!) with a push of a button and without skills is definitely new and that's the reason why it is newsworthy.

So even if the tech is wrong, the product crap and the workmanship shoddy there is something new here: a lethal weapon that can pass through a metal detector can be manufactured by anybody without skills. They still need ammo, they are manufacturing guns (which in many places can get you into a very large amount of trouble), they're showing that 3D printing is an enabling technology.

As noted below there are better ways of making guns, but they require a little bit more in terms of skills (but less in terms of investment, and the guns will be much better).

[blisterpeanuts]

Guns are easily obtained on the black market in any country in the world. I'd be much more concerned about 3-D printed nuclear bombs or 3-D printed surface-to-air missiles or, in the not-too-distant future, nanotech 3-D printed tailored viruses :(