Future gun control shot down

In less than a decade, 3D-printed firearms have become functional and

can be made quite easily in your kitchen

Firearm manufacture is an ancient technology. Dated designs go back to China

in the 12th century, while more “modern” mechanisms appear as early as the
13th century. Manufacturing firearms has never been particularly difficult, but an
effective and reliable build requires some technical knowledge. Industrialisation
yielded benefits — improvements in quality at a lower cost, which was almost
impossible to match with any non-industrialised process. Well, that is, until
2020.
From 2013 to today, 3D-printed firearm technology has moved to the point
where a gun that is semiautomatic, accurate, and reliable to several hundred if
not thousands of rounds, is easy to manufacture.
The history
In 2013, Cody Wilson as part of Defense Distributed, a digital printing and
firearms company, showcased The Liberator — a fully 3D-printed firearm that
was single-shot, almost single use, highly unreliable, difficult to replicate and too
expensive for mainstream manufacture.
The subsequent backlash against Defense Distributed, primarily driven by
“ghost gun” fearmongering, included the ineffective shutdown of the company’s
servers by the US department of state. But The Liberator was downloaded more
than 100 000 times before it was removed from online — and by then the files
were shared on other networks. It also generated fantastic publicity and acted
as the catalyst for the 3D-printed firearm revolution.
Followers of Defense Distributed and other designers, engineers and publishers
began collaborating on the manufacture and design of 3D-printed firearms in an
agile and decentralised manner, analogous to open-source software
development. The collective, currently under the banner of Deterrence
Dispensed, improved on existing designs, developed new ones and began
tackling major barriers to the reproducible home production of reliable firearms.
From 2013 to date, we’ve seen the printing of AR (Armalite Rifle) lower
receivers, a range of full and hybrid pistols, magazines and other components,
which by their very design and ease of manufacture circumvent the legislation
designed to prevent their proliferation. For instance, the AR lower receivers first
printed in 2013, and consistently improved upon, are the main regulated
component of AR-15 rifles in the United States and are available for print online.
The limitation of most released firearm designs almost always boiled down to
the need to use some factory components to ensure successful operation. In
2016 the Shuty 9x19/9mm semiautomatic pistol carbine required a Glock 17
factory barrel and an AR fire control group for successful operation.
This meant that the stated goal of these firearms — to overcome and fully
circumvent regulation — was, as of 2016, still a work in progress.
Fast forward to 2020 and the release of the FGC- 9, a hybrid 3D-printed firearm
that requires no regulated or factory components to manufacture — and it
includes a build manual, video tutorials and online help forums.
Technicalities
From a technical perspective and for clarity, it’s technically a hybrid 3D-printed
firearm in that some of the components are metal and require some minor
technical work for incorporation into the design:
1. The receivers, magazine catches, grips, stock and bolt carrier are
3D-printed.
2. The firing pin and bolt are made of steel, the type you can pick up at almost
any hardware store.
3. The fire control group is compatible with and obtainable from airsoft toy guns,
with plans to release printable versions.
4. The barrel is made from common hydraulic piping and is athome machined
through a DIY electrochemical process that can be done in your kitchen sink.
Making the FGC-9 is easy. Almost all of the handiwork has been done by the
team at Deterrence Dispensed. Designs and files for printing are available for
download and only require you to print.
The step-by-step manual and guide for manufacture and assembly covers in
detail how to make the firing pin, barrel and any other components that may
require some non-printing work, and if you still run into trouble, there are online
platforms and successful builders ready to assist you.
Cost
Although there are some capital costs (mainly the printer and power supply for
the barrel manufacture), most other tools are readily available. You probably
own some, or could borrow or rent them. The printing can also be outsourced
as there are countless shops and individuals who specialise in it. You just share
the STL file (a 3D-printing file format) and specify a material for print.
The estimated unit cost to print is about R2 850 (including thermoplastic resin
for the body, steel for bolt and barrel and springs/screws for assembly and
operation). A full capital investment with the printer and power supply would be
about R8 550.
In about two weeks one could, in theory, make a fully functioning, reliable
semiautomatic firearm at a relatively low cost.
Compare this to commercially
available firearms, which range in cost from between R5 000 and R13 000 and
require a R2 200 competency and firearm licensing process, a safe at a
minimum of R1 000 to store the weapon and a wait time of three to six months.
It’s clear that the economics and ease of access to own a gun favours home
manufacture (ignoring legal implications, of course).
Regulation
Aside from the fact that there are plenty of “good” reasons to own a firearm,
such as self-defence, hunting, collection or engineering curiosity, how much
longer will it be before criminals and transnational criminal organisations realise
that it’s far cheaper and easier to print locally than to transport firearms across
borders, provinces and states?
At what point does it become easier for gangsters in the Cape Flats to
manufacture their own firearms rather than go through the expensive process of
bribing police officials at the SAPS Central Firearms Registry? I refer here to
investigations carried out by the late and honourable Lieutenant-colonel Charl
Kinnear.
When will we start seeing disenfranchised job seekers turn to the manufacture
and sale of firearms to cover the cost of living, as so many have done in other
industries, such as drugs, to name but one?
Will the average citizen resort to home manufacturing to avoid the lengthy
licensing process currently available, especially in a country such as South
Africa, which is plagued by high levels of violent crime?
I don’t know how firearms should be regulated in a world where they can be
made in one’s kitchen without much technical knowledge, but it is quite clear
that prohibition of legal firearm ownership will only encourage a move to home
manufacture. There is evidence of 3D-printed firearms in Australia, and a
reasonable amount of evidence to suggest they’ve been made and tested in
several European countries that have archaic firearm legislation.
For the Americans in the 1920s, the prohibition of alcohol was a failed exercise,
just as the prohibition of cigarettes in South Africa was during the Covid-19
lockdown. What occurred instead was a burgeoning of alternate markets.
The reality is that the fundamental forces of supply and demand always triumph
over the law. We need to move beyond can-and-cannot-own models of
regulation to making ownership work in a safe way. This could potentially act as
a catalyst for improving trust between citizens, the police and other state
institutions.
3D-printed firearms have changed from being barely useful to being functional
and easy to make. The technology will keep improving, so the cost will continue
to decrease and reliability, functionality and ease of manufacture will increase.
Regulating these firearms is impossible — it’s naive to think we can control the
flow of information on the internet and even more absurd to assume that we can
start to regulate basic building materials when we can barely control already
regulated substances.
The facts speak for themselves — technology has pushed us into an era where
the notion of gun control as we know it is dead.
Zain Yousuf is an independent arms analyst with a focus on the evolution of
policy and doctrine in a rapidly evolving technological environment. This article
first appeared on the Mail & Guardian’s Thought Leader website