On today’s episode of Uncanny Valley, we discuss how WIRED was able to legally 3D-print the same gun allegedly used by Luigi Mangione, and where US law stands on the technology.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      How do you mean? You 3D print something with no serial and it’s untraceable. Even if they find it they can’t definitively say your firearm shot the bullets. Unless of course you’re on video doing it and admit to it.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Unless of course you’re on video doing it and admit to it.

        Something tells me not doing that part is going to be harder for a significant portion of today’s population than getting a weapon.

      • seathru@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You 3D print something with no serial and it’s untraceable.

        Except for all the metal parts they used a debit card/paypal to buy.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Those would hard to teace and yu can pay cash. How many stores sell metal pipe withthe same inner diameter as a 45 caliber. It would be lole tracing meth lab by ammonia sales.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Depends. He used a printed glock, not an FGC2.0. The FGC uses parts like you describe but printed glocks just take glock parts.

            That said, it’s still fairly trivial to acquire those glock parts anonymously.

        • magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The only regulated parts (I know of) are:

          • receiver (considered the actual gun, this is the bit they print)

          • suppressors (not printable but you can make these homemade, though not as good and definitely not as reliable.)

          • autosears (or anything else that makes your gun fully automatic, or even act like it, usually these are super basic and printable)

          • big magazines (not federal but a lot of states have laws on em’ Usually states with these laws will allow big ones to be sold with rivets, so they can usually be converted with a drill and new spring. Also they’re just boxes w/ springs so you can print one.)

          They’re also starting to Anodize rifling into barrels using cheap 3D printed jigs, so some of the metal parts are now getting homemade too.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            autosears

            Autosears themselves are not actually regulated. It’s the action of fully automatic fire that is. Which is kind of ridiculous because it’s not terribly uncommon to have a gun do it by accident on worn out parts.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, you can’t easily print an entire gun, but the parts you buy don’t necessarily tie you to the gun.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The components aren’t traceable either. They don’t have serial numbers on them. Typically only the lower receiver does. This is why that’s the part that’s typically 3D-printed.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Didn’t Luigi get caught with the weapon in his backpack? The title picture on this article is literally him. If it’s untraceable by printing, it seems you’d want to not have it on you if apprehended.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Common plan for professional hitman is to drop the gun at or near the scene. With a ghost gun what could tgey trace back

        • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Factually, they illegally searched his bag without a warrant at the mcdonald’s, repacked the bag, put the bag in a police vehicle and drove to the police station without bodycam, and then turned bodycam back on to search the bag again and instantly “find” the ghost gun in his bag, which, without a serial number, is conveniently impossible to prove it was not planted.

          https://www.wtaj.com/news/local-news/new-photos-show-luigi-mangiones-arrest-defense-argues-for-evidence-to-be-suppressed/

          The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”

          • FreedomAdvocate
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Funny that they never deny the gun was his, just that the search was unconstitutional.

            • elephantium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Almost like the lawyer thinks “they didn’t follow procedure” is an easier legal argument than “the police dept is trying to frame my client”.

              • FreedomAdvocate
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                16 hours ago

                The gun isn’t the only evidence. All they’re doing is drawing attention to the fact that it was his gun by not denying it was his and trying to get it excluded from evidence. Even if they win this argument and get the gun excluded, they’ve basically confirmed that the gun was his in doing so.

                • elephantium@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  his gun

                  Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?

                  Nitpick the lawyer’s phrasing all you like; it won’t actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I’m not going to jump to “why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he’s clearly guilty as sin” based on a Lemmy comment!

              • FreedomAdvocate
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                16 hours ago

                It does if you want people to believe the gun wasn’t yours. The gun isn’t the only evidence, and not denying it’s yours but trying to get it excluded from evidence confirms that it was yours and you’re trying to hide it. It screams guilty.

                  • FreedomAdvocate
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    That’s how peoples opinions work, and no matter what any judge says, people can’t just forget and disregard that they know the gun was his just because a judge tells them that they are not supposed to know it was his.

                    My username is randomly generated, but also not ironic in this situation. Freedom has nothing to do with this.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah but they have video of him too. Idk the case well enough but I assume the gun itself wasn’t enough to prove he did it.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        when you fire a gun scratches are left on the bullet that are enough of a unique fingerprint to trace to the gun.