Back in 2013 Defense Distributed successfully created a working pistol using a $8,000 3D printer. This raised the specter of people printing guns for nefarious purpose and created quite a stir. The same company made the news in 2018 when Cody Wilson, an anarchist and owner of the company, was the subject of a lawsuit aimed at banning him from selling files for printing guns. As would be expected, this re-ignited the moral panic that occurred in 2013. While 3D printers are cheaper and better than in 2013, little else has changed—including my view of printing guns.
While the idea of criminals, terrorists and others printing their own guns is alarming, it is important to consider the facts of the alleged threat. As has often been pointed out, the 3D printer needed to make a functioning gun costs about $5,000 on the low end. While this is cheaper than the cost in 2013, $5,000 would buy a stack of guns and ammunition. As such, 3D printing a gun does not make much financial sense—if a person wants a gun, they can easily buy many better guns for less.
A second important point is that the typical printed gun is not much of a gun: it is a single shot, low caliber weapon. While it could hurt or even kill a person, it would be almost useless for someone intending to engage in a mass shooting and probably not very useful in most criminal endeavors. A criminal or terrorist would be foolish to choose such a weapon over a normal gun.
One sensible reply to these arguments is to point out that there are people who cannot legally own guns but who can a printer. These people, the argument would go, would be able to print guns to commit their misdeeds. The easy and obvious reply is that a person who is willing to break the law to illegally possess a printed gun can easily acquire normal guns for far less than the cost of the printer.
It could be countered that there are, for whatever reason, people who want an illegal gun but are unable or unwilling to buy a real gun illegally. For them, the printed gun would be an option. But, there is also an easy and obvious reply to this worry. Guns can be made using perfectly legal hardware acquired at a hardware store. This sort of improvised gun (the most common of which is called a “zip gun”) has been around a long time and can be easily made. Directions for these weapons are readily available on the internet and the parts are cheap. For those who cannot acquire bullets, there are even plans to make pneumatic weapons. Printing a gun just automates the process of making a homemade gun at a relatively high cost. So, the sudden moral panic over the printed gun is fundamentally misguided: it is just a technological variant of the worry that bad people will make guns at home.
While this does happen, people prefer to acquire professionally made guns when engaging in crimes and terrorist attacks. Thus, being worried about the threat posed by 3D printers and plans of guns for them is rather like being worried about the threat posed by hardware stores and plans for zip guns. While people can use them to make weapons, people are vastly more likely to use them for legitimate purposes and get their much better weapons some other way.
One could persist in arguing that the 3D printed gun will still be the only option for some terrorists. But, I suspect that they would forgo making homemade guns and instead go with homemade bombs. After all, a homemade bomb can do considerable damage and is far more effective than a homemade gun for such purposes. As such, there seems to be little reason to be worried about people printing up guns to commit crimes or make terrorists attacks. Real guns and more destructive weapons are readily available to everyone in the United States, so bans on printing guns or their plans would not make us any safer in terms of crime and terrorism. That said, a concern does remain.
While printing a gun to bypass the law makes no sense, there is the reasonable concern that people will print guns to bypass metal detectors. While the stock printed gun uses a metal firing pin, it would be easy enough to get this through security. The rounds would, of course, pose a bit of challenge—although plastic casings and bullets could be made. With such a gun, a would-be assassin could get into a government building or a would-be terrorist could get onto a plane. Or so one might things.
While this is a matter of concern, there are two points worth noting. First, as mentioned above, the stock printed gun is a single-shot low caliber weapon, which rather limits the damage a person can do with it. Second, while the gun is plastic, it is not invisible—it could be found by inspection and would show up on an X-ray. As such, the threat posed by such guns is extremely low. There is also the fact that one does not need a 3D printer to make a gun that can get past a metal detector (which are already illegal).
While the current technology can, for the most part, produce a limited gun, there is still the concern that advances in 3D printing will allow the affordable production of more effective firearms. For example, a low-cost home 3D printer that could produce a fully functional assault rifle or a machine pistol invisible to metal detectors would be very problematic. Of course, the printer would still need to be a cheaper and easier option than just getting guns the old-fashioned way, which is incredibly easy in the United States.
As a final point of concern, there is also the matter of the ban on the gun plans. Some have argued that to make the distribution of these plans illegal would violate the First Amendment, which is a matter for the courts. There is, of course, also the moral right of free expression. In this case, like other cases, it is a matter of weighing the harms of the expression against the harm inflicted by restricting it. Given the above arguments, I hold that the threat presented by printable guns does not warrant the restriction of the freedom of expression. As such, outlawing such plans would be immoral. To use an analogy, it would be like banning recipes for unhealthy foods when such food is readily available for purchase everywhere in the United States.
To me, this is a very simple issue – and even though your arguments are all good ones, the only one that really ought to have to be made is the last one.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) was the one to object to the unanimous consent request put forth by Bill Nelson (D-Fla). What he said was this –
“I first saw this legislation literally only moments ago, and therefore haven’t had adequate time to review it. But I will say this – any legislation that comes forth from this body that begins with the following words will attract my attention, and should attract the attention of anyone who is concerned with our First Amendment and other constitutional rights. It begins with the words,
It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally publish …”
That ought to be concerning to us. To each and every one of us. To Democrats and Republicans alike, and on that basis, I object.
Right on.
No further discussion necessary, IMO. To even enter a discussion about the dangers or the detection (as the bill sponsors do), or the feasibility of criminals or terrorists’ ability to procure these plans and a printer and make any kind of use out of them – well, those discussions pre-suppose the acceptance of the concept of restricting the freedom of speech and or the press, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. As you point out, it is no different than criminalizing the publication of unhealthy recipes – and is a very slippery slope.
I think that your arguments about the cost/practicality of 3D printed guns are meaningless – technology moves at an incredibly fast rate – and the quality, speed, and price point of highly accurate 3D printing is plummeting. I am sure that within the next few years we will see a 3D printed automatic weapon, created on a $1500 home machine. But that is completely beside the point. If that kind of sophisticated technology were available right now, the proposed bill should still die a quick death – and the people who brought it up should really be re-evaluated as to their suitability for their position.
Incidentally, it is legal in this country to make your own gun for your own personal use. There are some restrictions to this law, of course, but it is still broadly legal.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/homemade-guns-are-they-legal-must-they-be-registered.
Nor do they have to be registered – unless they are offered for sale.
Some of your other arguments do, however, resonate strongly with me – in particular,
“…But, I suspect that they would forgo making homemade guns and instead go with homemade bombs.”
Bingo.
It’s not the gun, it’s the person. Terrorists would opt for bombs. Murderers would opt for knives. Suicidal people would opt for pills or cliffs, and on and on.
Same is true for so-called “Gaming Addiction”. It’s not the games, it’s the person – and as you said in one of your comments, in response to someone suggesting that the addicted gamer be visited by a sex worker, the gamer would just then become a sex addict.
It’s the person.
Criminalizing the publication of plans would do nothing to curb their proliferation, but it would have a HUGE effect on our constitution.
I would rather Bill Nelson say what’s really on his mind – that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are obsolete, and require a Constitutional Convention to discuss a re-write.
Agree with all points. However as to I would rather Bill Nelson say what’s really on his mind ….if you’ve ever heard Bill Nelson speak…sigh…
True, the cost/effectiveness argument is contingent on the current technology and could be rendered obsolete by advances. However, it is still relevant now to point out that printed guns are not much of a threat because of these facts and legislating for possible futures is problematic.
…”it is still relevant now to point out that printed guns are not much of a threat “
I understand the temptation to bring that up – but it shifts the conversation away from the vastly more important constitutional issue, and thus diminishes a fundamental right to a right that is contingent upon the threats that might arise by people abusing it. Once that precedent is set, the floodgates will open and the First Amendment will be substantially weakened.
We are threatened daily by religious fundamentalists who seek to do us harm as part of their belief in and interpretation of a doctrinal directive, yet we would not think (one would hope) about outlawing the practice of that religion or any religion, as it is constitutionally protected right.
If lawmakers were to propose such legislation, to outlaw the practice of a religion or the publication of the book or scholarly interpretations that inspire some to wage a “holy war”, I don’t think that the arguments against this legislation would have anything to do with the proliferation or control of terrorism – no one would say “Well, at this time, it’s not really that bad”.
I think that we are actually at the gates of this kind of argument – not against the fundamentalists I allude to above, but maybe against Christians. Fundamentalist Christian tenets are increasingly in opposition to much liberal political thought, and like the straight white men I referred to in an earlier post, they are often relegated to “back seat status” based not on constitutional grounds, but rather a modern interpretation of consequences.
…” I am willing to consider consequentialist arguments for limiting rights (for example, I should not have the right to own a stockpile of biological weapons) “
I am not so willing, especially when it comes to the Constitution. I do not disagree that the intent of the authors in crafting the Second Amendment did not consider the kind of world we live in, the sophistication of weaponry and the amount of firepower an individual can amass or the amount of death and destruction he can create – but the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right.
Let me clarify. I don’t believe that the Constitution is a document that is etched in stone – but if a consequentialist argument for limiting rights is to be considered, it should be considered under Article V, and the document amended based on that process. If we, in today’s world, believe that the Second Amendment is flawed to the extent that it does not consider today’s technology, and requires some clarification or revision, there is a process for that. It should not be whittled away at by some senator who thinks he can get more votes by appealing to people’s fears.
This is what I meant when I said that Bill Nelson should say what’s really on his mind (WTP – I have not heard him speak – but based on your comment, I guess I consider myself lucky). To propose that we restrict publication of documents in any form is to declare the First Amendment to be flawed, and thus requires that it be addressed via Article V. Short of that, I would certainly hope that if Nelson’s bill ever did come to a vote and by some miracle were to pass and be signed into law, the Supreme Court would absolutely have to declare that law unconstitutional. If they did not, I would have to say that our democracy, or representative republic, our way of life and the rule of law are officially dead.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I definitely recognize the gray area, but I oppose any and all simple legislation on State or Federal levels to restrict my rights unless they are addressed at the source. I think we’re probably at that point, and it makes sense to me to call the convention and settle it once and for all.
When it comes to the First Amendment, I see no gray area. To whatever extent there may be some negative consequent to our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press – we can live with it. To say that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” is crystal clear. To add to that, “Except when it is deemed dangerous”, well, that opens things up to quite a lot of deeming, and quite a lot of abridging.
Again, good post.
It should not be whittled away at by some senator who thinks he can get more votes by appealing to people’s fears.
Like any other natural right it should not be whittled away (by judges either) because doing so misplaces the evil that needs to be addressed on the inanimate object via the simple possession of such instead of on the actions/intent of the possessor. The Constitution may not be etched in stone but the nature of the world is infused in all of us. It is our Constitution’s acknowledgement of our fundamental, inalianable rights that make it the preeminent document of governance that it is.
(WTP – I have not heard him speak – but based on your comment, I guess I consider myself lucky)
Submitted for your consideration…he is one poky lil pup…
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4576550/senator-nelsons-speech-drones
Lucky’s just a frame of mind anyway.
Sadly, I will never be able to get those ten minutes back.
Not only is he a boring speaker, but he is completely uninformed. Drones and UAVs happen to be a pretty big part of our curriculum – going back to when one of our photo professors decided to duct-tape his iphone to what was then known as a “Quad-Copter”.
Among the 250 or so “near misses” Nelson cites are thousands upon thousands of images that fall into the category of “Remote Sensing”, which has applications ranging from the evaluation of deforestation, crop damage, accurate mapping of GPS-inhibited areas, 3D reconstruction (photogrammetry) of terrain models (accurate to <5cm, btw).
In our College of Art, there is a big program in aerial photography that, in part, works with the city for commercial, promotional, and historic purposes. In our College of Science, there is much research (in collaboration with industry) in the kind of remote sensing described above – in the fields of cartography, forestry, geology, geography, and 3D imaging. Our College of Computer Science is working with Imaging Science to develop the processors and sensors that are now part of the higher-end drones, that can override any human input and alter course to avoid anything else in the sky.
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but the free market and technology are the facilitators – if they can get past the government.
Of course, if some nut wants to put a bomb on a drone, maybe we should outlaw them.
Like you, I do think that the free speech argument is the most relevant to the ban on the plans. While I am willing to consider consequentialist arguments for limiting rights (for example, I should not have the right to own a stockpile of biological weapons), they are not compelling in this case. Also, as you point out, Nelson’s lead in is very problematic.
It certainly makes sense that is legal for people to make their own guns; there is no compelling reason why it should be illegal.
It is perfectly legal to build your own gun.
https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/31/how-to-legally-make-your-own-o
Well it kind of begs the question as to at what point something becomes (or even ceases to be) a “gun” or a type of gun such that it is now illegal? If I disassemble a gun into its component parts is it still a gun? I have an old Kentucky rifle, heirloom, where the flash pan broke off and is lost. Is it still a “gun”? I have a small nickel plated Saturday Night Special, takes .22 short. Another heirloom that family history says Granma used to carry in her stocking. But there’s a critical piece of the firing mechanism that doesn’t work. Is that a “gun”? In a society as litigious as ours, laws such as these can become quite silly, useless, and thus degenerate respect for the legitimate laws that we do have and need.
I think a philosopher would answer your question differently than a judge. (“If you sit on a table, does it become a chair? If you sit under it, does it become a hut?”)
I believe that if you are interested, there are all kinds of laws that will define a “gun” for purposes of arrest & prosecution – or avoiding them. The firing pin is a key element.
BTW, I had an ancestor who was a gunsmith, and was a pretty well known maker of Pennsylvania rifles – which are very similar to Kentucky rifles – or even the same thing. They were made by German craftsmen in PA in the 18th century, and the trade made its way down to KY. My ancestor was named Kettering, and was from Germany.
I think a philosopher would answer your question differently than a judge. (“If you sit on a table, does it become a chair? If you sit under it, does it become a hut?”)
Well, yes. Up until someone decides to outlaw/tax huts and chairs.
I believe that if you are interested, there are all kinds of laws that will define a “gun” for purposes of arrest & prosecution – or avoiding them. The firing pin is a key element.
Oh, I am aware of them. Not to the degree a gun enthusiast might be, nor in specifics to guns, but therein lies the absurdity. I carry a gun without a firing pin. My wife has the firing pin in her purse. Yes, it’s getting silly but that is the problem with laws that outlaw things. As the old stoner phrase went back when local governments tried to crack down on “head shops”, when bongs are outlawed only outlaws will have bongs. And to some degree, thus the popularity of hookahs.
BTW, I had an ancestor who was a gunsmith, and was a pretty well known maker of Pennsylvania rifles – which are very similar to Kentucky rifles – or even the same thing. They were made by German craftsmen in PA in the 18th century, and the trade made its way down to KY. My ancestor was named Kettering, and was from Germany.
My family was from western PA. I’ll have to get it down off the shelf (it’s up at my lake house) and check for a craftsman’s mark or such. Last I checked it didn’t have any distinguishing marks though the compartment that went in the stock was rather fancy. I was told it was originally a kit in that basically the barrel, trigger, etc was sold and you crafted your own stock for it, but this one looks professionally made. Not sure about the details. It was purchased by my grandfather and uncle back in the 1920’s from a black family that supposedly had used it to escape the south…or through the Civil War or some combination of such. Story got muddled through the generations.
Totally OT, but …
“My family was from western PA”
Mine too, on my mother’s side. One branch (Stauffer) were Mennonites – they left Switzerland after the 30 Years’ War and settled in Alsace-Lorraine, thinking they’d get a better shake from the locals upon being invited by the Elector of the Palatinate. When that didn’t pan out, they headed to the New World, settling in Lancaster County. A few of them ventured west and settled in Westmoreland Country.
Another branch (the Ketterings) were also from Germany – also headed to Lancaster. They were driven out because they were Lutherans. They headed south through the Cumberland Gap and were part of the group that authored the Cumberland Compact, establishing the town of Nash-town (Nashville, TN, now). A few headed back to Lancaster, then west to Westmoreland and Armstrong counties.
Another branch (Alcorn) were expelled from Scotland by James I, and were sent to N. Ireland, and ultimately sailed to America and Westmoreland County.
There are others from the area as well – Maxwell, Spencer, Koch, Cook.
In looking at the emigration motives of my intrepid ancestors, and add to that the fact that my father’s parents were Russian Jews who escaped the pogroms and Czar Nicholas II in 1904, I have decided that my family crest ought to bear the motto:
“We’ve been kicked out of better places than this!”
Of course, I have white skin, so I am one of the oppressors. Never mind the details.
http://kentuckyriflefoundation.org/pennsylvania/kettering-george/
I’ve known about this guy for a while and often look for his mark in various places, but have never found a rifle that can be attributed to him.
Interesting. Thanks. Yes, mostly old Germans/Dutch on my father’s side going way back to the early 1770s, at least in the longest direct branch that I was able to trace. One Irishman who married an English woman way back, but aside from those Ryals, western PA folks were Sterners, Stokes, Baums, Weddels, Weavers, etc. Mostly sodbusters and coal miners. No Mennonites that I recall but I do have memories as a small child of going out into the farm country around Pittsburgh and my parents buying produce from them in some huge barn. Oddly I don’t recall ever seeing any Amish. My mother’s family all got off the boat about 100 years ago or more, all from Germany doing roofing or working in the steel mills. A couple worked at a brewery.
…” $5,000 would buy a stack of guns and ammunition. As such, 3D printing a gun does not make much financial sense”
Actually, this would only be accurate if you could only print a single gun with each printer. The $5000 would be spread out over the total number of guns printed. The net cost of each gun would be the cost of the polymer used, plus a fraction of the cost of the machine. For example, if you were to print 500 guns, your cost per unit would be the polymer + $10, plus some nominal cost for electricity and square foot cost for the space it.takes up.
If you were an independent contractor (hit man, assassin, freelance terrorist, etc) you could deduct these costs as business expenses, or depreciate the initial outlay for the printer over time on your tax return.