In Ch. 8 of Leveling
the Playing Field (which I'm sure you've all read!), I talked about the
advent of 3D printing and how it has changed manufacturing, mostly for the
better. But not always for the better. One significant worry I had (and
have) about 3D printing is that it can enable the proliferation of homemade
weaponry, including very accurate reproductions of weapons such as the
venerable 1911 semiautomatic pistol and the AR-15-type rifles that have been
used in so many mass shootings over the past few years.
Now, I own weapons. I like to think of myself
as one of those "responsible gun owners" we hear about. I own guns
for sport, for protection, and for hunting. But I don’t believe that just
anyone should be able to own just any gun, nor do I think there is anything
wrong with having to pass background checks in order to purchase a weapon or
being required to register many types of firearms. I'm not anti-gun; I'm
anti-idiot.
![]() |
Lesley is not a big gun person, but she has gone shooting with me a couple of times. Naturally, it turns out that she's an excellent shot. |
Of course, what I think doesn't matter much,
and just how little it matters was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago
when the Department of Justice surrendered to a "First Amendment"
argument that a 3D data file representing a weapon was in fact protected free
speech and could be hosted on (and downloaded from) a public-facing
website. (The suit was filed by Cody Wilson, the inventor of the Liberator 3D-printed
pistol about which I wrote in the book.) After a long, drawn-out court case, it
appears that the DOJ has quietly settled with Wilson, whose stated goal has
been to moot the gun control debate by showing that it can't be
controlled. In the words of a recent Wired Magazine article, the DOJ
promised to:
…change
the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few
exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless
ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't
try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet.
Basically, this means that Wilson and his
supporters have won the war. They've successfully blurred the line between the
First and Second Amendments, guaranteeing that anyone can design and/or
download-3D printer-compatible plans to just about any firearm. And, as any
hacked corporation or repressive government can tell you, it's very, very
difficult to police digital data. Even if you wanted to hide it (which
Wilson and his allies do not), the data would get out; after all, it's just
information. And these days, information (and misinformation) is pretty much
everywhere.
I don't really worry much about Wilson
himself. He's an intelligent and seemingly stable young man, just one with whom I disagree
politically. I'm not worried that he's about to snap and become a mass
murderer. But I wonder how many mass murderers he's about to enable. Even one
would be too many, I would think.
Some have drawn an analogy to an
automobile--another tool that kills many thousands every year, pointing out
that it is possible to build a motorized vehicle. But there are differences.
The purpose of an automobile is not to kill people, of course. Like a
hammer or other tool, it can be used to hurt people, but that's a
misapplication of the tool, not its purpose. And it's certainly true that I
could collect or (even build) parts and create a car. (Well, in my case,
I'd have to make a few phone calls to my friend George Kelley, if I wanted the
car to actually run.) But look what happens when I'm finished building this
car, this tool capable of killing thousands every year: I'd have to license and
register it. And I would myself have to be tested and licensed if I wanted to use
the car.
I'm fine with having to register my car and
license its driver. I'm also fine with having to register certain firearms and
with having to license their users. But this technology—and the DOJ's
capitulation to Wilson and the other plaintiffs—will make it very difficult to
police the proliferation of this weaponry. Even if the authorities were to
confiscate my weapon on some grounds (perhaps I'm a felon, perhaps I violated a
restraining order, perhaps I've shown myself to have anger issues and have
committed assaults), I could simply go home and (assuming I own the proper
equipment), press a button, and go have dinner. By the time I'm finished with
my after-dinner port (not that I would drink port—who the hell drinks port?!),
I'd have a nice shiny new .45 pistol or an AR-15 receiver sitting in my
printer.
And if I could do that, what could an angry ex-husband or wife do? What could a gang or
a cartel do?