This already would fall under an FFL license for legal citizens anyway. As is the nature of the internet though, this open design will be preserved and available for those who seek it.
Yes. I am actually surprised we haven’t seen a major terrorist attack in a western country using remote controlled or autonomous drones for example. The technology has been available for years now.
3D printed home made guns like the FGC-9 and Urutau have been around for a while now, but remain marginal in gun crime.
As you say, the cat is out the bag and on the internet forever. However homemade guns and instructions on how to make them have been around for decades.
Most western terrorist attacks are by opportunistic losers who don’t have the knowledge or motivation to do something like this.
They’d rather drive a car into people who make them angry and use a gun they already own.
As for organized groups until recently there have been any good reason for an attack from any centrally organized group.
The lack of simple attacks on soft targets is proof that the threat is overstated and that a statistically overwhelming portion of humans simply don’t want to put bombs on busses and rig them to explode on bridges or in tunnels.
Ukraine and Russia are western countries. Narco cartels have started using fpv drones, too.
We really should call them northern countries at this point
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
Being in that category just prevents it from being sold. It not illegal federally to build your own weapon without a FFL.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
Is that the same rule for destructive devices? Genuinely curious - I know privately made firearms have different rules.
frongt@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
No, for a destructive device you have to file a form 1.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Granted I live in a state where this is unobtanium officially anyway.