4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

1

Should 3D printers become accessible to the public without restrictions?

Word count: 2973

Summary This essay raises the ethical question of the safe use of 3D printing technology given the possibility of

abusing the technology to commit crimes with 3D printed guns. A series of arguments for the

establishment of a regulatory framework is provided in order for the actors involved in the development

of 3D printing technology to see the possible consequences that this innovation might bring to the public

debate. The actors themselves carry an active responsibility for the safety of the general public, although

the government carries a larger share of it. Since engineers are the makers and designers of this

technology, their participation is critical to make the prevention of 3D-printed-gun crime a reality. It is

proposed that engineers be responsible for the correct design of 3D printers taking into account some

technical restrictions. Among them are the implementation of a locking system to avoid unauthorized

gun printing. Companies must restrict the sale of 3D printers to some individuals and distribution in some

countries to avoid the spread of crime perpetrated with 3D printed guns. The regulatory framework

outlined in this essay does not aim to be a comprehensive legal measure, but a starting point for debate

within the ethics of 3D printing, which pertain not only engineers, companies, and the government, but

also the final users and the public at large.

Introduction It is a rainy day and the delivery has arrived at home. The receiver opens the box and builds his new

machine. Few minutes later the new machine is ready to use. There is no doubt it can make wonders, it

can expand the imagination to create new things out of his mind. This new artifact touches his sense of

wonder, since real things are seen being created, being made and touched upon. It is a 3D printer. He

can print a case for his modern phone, a small Eiffel tower for a gift, even the figure of a human head.

He can even experiment with his own inventions.

The next day he searches in the internet and easily finds an open source website to download the

models of a firearm. He instructs the machine to print the object, and after a few minutes, the machine

stops. This new machine has become a small-scale manufacturing facility of working firearms. The

printed gun may be used for his own recreation. He can use it for his home safety given all regulation

compliance. He could also just commit a criminal act.

What is now a hobby for enthusiasts and a cost-saving measure for some companies, could later on

become a potential danger for the public. The 3D printing industry has grown over the years, and more

sophisticated parts are now being able to be printed, while the technology is being developed to allow

the printing of more complex objects such as life-saving organs for humans. The technology itself is

revolutionary, since it can affect not only the manufacturing industry, but also the arts, science,

education, etc. 3D printing empowers students to design, visualize, hold and test their ideas in real

space1.

4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

2

However, the introduction of a new technology can have its associated risks, and 3D printing is not the

exception. At the same time the technology is developed further, the possibility of unwanted acts of

crime committed by individuals who 3D print weapons may be close to become a reality due to the

increased access of available information regarding 3D models of weapons.

Therefore, there are potential ethical considerations regarding the use of 3D printing technology to print

weapons that must be addressed before this industry expands to its full potential. These considerations

concern the work of engineers, government agencies, companies, and 3D printing service providers.

These concerns call for the implementation of some technical and legal restrictions on companies selling

3D printers and the users who buy them. Since 3D printers have the potential to be used to print

weapons to commit crime, they must be sold with some restrictions to the buyers, the goal of which is

the safe use of 3D printing technology.

Such restrictions stem from the ethical responsibilities of the principal actors involved: engineers,

industry managers, and the government. Each one of them has direct associations to the development

and application of 3D printing technology and should act according to their share of responsibility of the

use of the final product. Now that 3D printing technology is a relatively new development, the active

responsibility of providing safety to the general public lies in the actors involved, mainly in the

government, with its production and distribution so that the criminal acts with the use of 3D printed

guns are minimized as much as possible.

For the printing of guns, these restrictions would be aimed at preventing the use of guns in crimes while

at the same time allowing citizens to exercise their right to own firearms. Finally, the quest for

regulating the development, use, and sale of 3D printers would also serve as the basis for identifying the

carriers of passive responsibility in case of criminal acts, so they can be held accountable within an

established legal framework.

Role of engineers Engineers working on the development of a new technology must always be concerned about the

ethical questions that the technology may carry with it. In the case of 3D printing, it has very promising

ways of improving human life. Over the past few decades, printing technology has advanced from two-

dimensional (2D) printing to an additive process in which successive layers of material are distributed to

form 3D shapes2. The production of 3D structures with complex geometries by printing is being applied both to enable rapid prototyping and manufacturing in industry and to the production of personalized

consumer products in the home, such as bicycle parts, jewelry and electrical components3. Yes, it is very

desirable to have improvement in the way humans live with the use of technology, but engineers must

be cautious about the potential dangers to society that the same technology represents. It is clear that

3D printing a gun easily by anyone without supervision would risk human lives because of the nature of

guns themselves.

Engineers, therefore, would be involved in ethical implications such as advancing a technology with

potential to be used for criminal acts. Here, engineers would be in a position to design a technology

capable of dual use. It would be unfair to completely blame the engineers who designed and built a 3D

printer that was used to manufacture guns to commit murder because it was not the design intent of

the machine. Therefore, the ethical load is not left to engineers only who try to improve an important

4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

3

technology, but to appropriate government agencies that must intervene to regulate the technology to

some extent.

For engineers, the safety of products is of paramount importance, but in this case, the printers can be

made technically flawless, and the final user would decide which objects to print out. From a

consequentialist point of view, the utility of many people benefiting from 3D printing technology against

the low number of crimes caused by 3D-printed guns may place the engineer in an ethically safe

position. Taking into account virtue ethics, the care for the users must be a virtue, but this care cannot

be extended to the purpose the user makes for the printed products because engineers are out of reach

into that domain. The domain in which engineers might provide a defining input in their relation to the

ethics behind 3D printing of guns is in the technical details of 3D printers. Engineers, therefore, would be

responsible for certain technical aspects of the product that could enforce a set of legal restrictions

placed on 3D printing technology.

Technical restrictions For example, a locking system could be implemented on all 3D printers code to make the machine

recognize the fundamental parameters needed in the CAD (Computer Aided Design) file to produce a

gun. These parameters would have to be defined such that without them, the printer cannot produce a

firearm. For instance, all small guns have a bored cannon-shape channel connected to a holding shape

to take the gun. These might represent the fundamental parameters to shape a gun. Failing to properly

design and test the 3D printer to avoid such print outs from the machine without authorized use, would

make engineers partly liable for the criminal acts committed with those guns.

Also, the users of 3D printers might obtain a special permission to unlock the 3D printer system to be

able to print guns. Engineers would be responsible for the correct making of the unlocking system as

well, and should, to the extent of their knowledge, provide users and government agencies with the

degree of vulnerability of the locking system against illegal hacking. Engineers would also be responsible

for properly designing a reliable system to avoid printing codes containing specific parameters to

produce guns with printers that use metal as material. The use of metal to print such codes would have

to be authorized by the government through a special permission.

High schools, universities and research institutes that would need to 3D-print guns for educational and

research purposes would also have to obtain a special permission to unlock the system to avoid possible

unwanted print outs that could end up in a tragedy. For instance, in the United States, there have been

numerous deadly shootings in schools and universities. Unfortunately, dozens of innocent people have

been killed. Rather than search for policies to make already safe schools safer we should seek to

channel the public energy created by these shootings to take guns out of the hands of children and

adults4 If 3D printers with unlimited plastic or metallic material are available in schools, it would

represent an additional unnecessary risk to care for in educational establishments.

The majority of 3D printers use plastic materials to make the parts. In the case of guns, some regulations

as The Undetectable Firearms Act of 19885 require that all firearms are able to be identified with

detectors. The extension of this law includes that 3D printed guns must have a metal plate capable of

being detected by electronic scanners6. So how could engineers be able to design a 3D system that can

avoid the printing of plastic guns without a metal plate inside? How could they be held liable if they fail

to design such a system in the event of a crime? Although a plastic gun without a metal plate is not as

4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

4

effective as a metal gun, it can still fire deadly bullets. Just now in March 2015, 3-D printing hobbyists

have managed to print up a functioning Colt CM901 assault rifle, whats said to be the heaviest caliber

rifle to ever roll off the presses of a 3-D printer.The CM901 fires 7.62 mm rounds, a heavier caliber

bullet than that of the AR-157. Therefore, the user would have to be authorized to unlock the system and

print plastic guns. It would be his responsibility to place the metal plate to make the gun legal. With the

correct implementation of these restrictions, engineers would have an active responsibility participation

in preventing abuse of 3D printers to commit crimes.

Legal restrictions Government authorities must weigh on the ethical implications of an end user printing out a gun to

commit murder. When a new technology emerges, the law must keep updated to guarantee the general

welfare of the public. The potential risk of printing and abusing guns by anyone without some form of

regulation challenges policy makers with respect to the rights of the individuals. For example, in the

United States, there is a strong gun culture derived from the Second Amendment to the Constitution,

which guarantees citizens to keep and bear arms.8

Gun right advocacy groups will rise their voice toward protection of citizens rights given a strong

regulation of 3D-printed guns. In fact, having the possibility of buying a 3D printer to produce guns and

commit crimes may be more or less equal to buying a registered gun and use it for the same purpose,

but in this case there is an intermediate legal product called the 3D printer. Therefore, how can

government regulation interfere with the right of people to print guns in the first place or go after

people who illegally printed guns in their basements? It would be hard to enforce a regulation code that

completely stops people from printing guns to commit crimes, but at least something has to be done

without restricting peoples rights.

A legal framework to decrease the likelihood of committed crimes with 3D printed guns may come from

regulating companies with respect to whom they sell machines to. The regulation to companies might

include, for example, the denial of sale to minors. By being able to purchase 3D printers, minors might

be persuaded by ex-felons to obtain access to 3D printing technology. The denial of their sale to minors

would protect them from being targets of criminals. However, minors could still benefit from 3D printing

technology at stores where they could purchase a 3D printed product or 3D printer time. In those

places, the 3D print provider would have to comply with the same regulations as for individual citizens.

Also, the regulation might include no sale of 3D printers to people with a criminal record such as it

occurs with regular guns. In this case, 3D printers would enter the category of firearms since they would

be a resource to make guns, which is a difficult scenario to envision, but it might become relevant in the

near future given the continuous development and free release of design shape contours of weapons. It

is not hard to find in the internet videos of 3D printed small rifles or parts of a semi-automatic gun. For

now, some parts can be 3D printed while others purchased as spare parts, so as to be assembled later by

anybody. In the near future, much more complex parts could freely be available in the internet through

torrent trafficking without the government able to stop its distribution.

Companies might also be regulated against the sale in countries with a strong record of terrorism

activity to decrease the possibility of enlarging existing illegal trafficking networks or creating additional

ones. If left unregulated, the situation might become transnational and illegal trafficking of metallic 3D-

4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

5

printed guns might arise as a phenomenon. It might empower extremist groups to become insurgent for

terrorism activities.

If nothing is done to stop it, the situation might become worse if complex 3D shapes of entire missile

systems, grenades, ammunition, launchers, and other military equipment are printed for terrorism

purposes. It just takes to have one CAD design and a 3D printer with sufficient material to start piling up

weapons. Therefore, government agencies at the international level and the entire 3D printing industry

alike would have to reach an agreement on the specific regulations and requirements of the distribution

of 3D printers around the world to avoid the aforementioned undesirable phenomenon.

Downside of regulations On the other hand, a strong regulation to companies might imply less revenue in the long term since the

3D printing industry is relatively new and the market has just started to expand. Reinvestment in the

technology is a critical part of expanding its capabilities. If regulation kicks hard into the 3D market

industry to a certain degree, profits might be crippled and reinvestment might be slowed down.

Therefore, there has to be a certain balanced consideration of the economics involved and the potential

risks to the general public. For this, companies must cooperate in the debate over the future of 3D

printing technology. We are still in a safe position to start the process, and it must not be delayed until

the first victims of 3D printed guns are already dead.

Concluding remarks To summarize, the development of 3D printing technology has brought many benefits to society in

general. Many industries have benefited with the level of sophistication the technology has reached so

far. Fortunately, it is expected that 3D printing technology will greatly improve as more research and

design work is being undertaken. The role of engineers has been pivotal for the improvement of this

technology since they design and develop the capabilities of this innovation. As with any other

technology, the benefits it brings sometimes comes with an additional cost, and engineers, companies,

and the government alike have to be aware of the ethical implications imposed that those costs

represent. 3D printing technology can be used for criminal purposes and a specific regulatory framework

has to be shaped to avoid unwanted negative actions perpetrated by the technology.

The very nature of having the ability to produce virtually any shape opens the doors to the abuse of the

technology for criminal acts. For this reason, there has to be series of specific restrictions in the

production and distribution of 3D printers to avoid unauthorized printing of weapons.

In the technical side of the product, 3D printers could contain a specific locking system that would

preclude anybody from printing specific shape parameters considered the fundamental blocks of a

firearm. Companies would also have to cooperate with the effort of not selling machines to

unauthorized users. Without interfering with the legitimate right of people to own arms, 3D printers

could be regulated with respect to whom they are being sold to and which countries they can be

distributed in.

At the end, these regulations might be considered a luxury given the state of the technology, but

governments must not wait for criminal acts to happen or criminal networks to develop. They must act

now. As for companies they must be aware of the benefits that it would bring to have their products

regulated to some degree, so that the technology can still be advanced for the benefit of all.

4420101 | Carlos Snchez Ramrez

6

References

1. Gonzalez-Gomez, J., Valero-Gomez, A., Prieto-Moreno, A. & Abderrahim, M. A new open source 3D-

printable mobile robotic platform for education. in Advances in Autonomous Mini Robots 49

62 (Springer, 2012).

2. Kruth, J.-P. Material incress manufacturing by rapid prototyping techniques. CIRP Annals-

Manufacturing Technology 40, 603614 (1991).

3. Malone, E. & Lipson, H. Faba Home: the personal desktop fabricator kit. Rapid Prototyping

J. 13, 245255 (2007).

4. Donohue, E., Schiraldi, V., Ziedenberg, J. School. House Hype: School Shootings and the Real Risks

Kids Face in America. Policy Report. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. 1998-07-00

5. Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. 922(p).

6. To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 years, 18 U.S.C. 922(p).

7. Kedmey, D. Now 3D-Printed Guns Can Fire Even Bigger Bullets. Time 27 Mar. 2015: 1.

8. U.S. Const. amend. II