The gun industry has spent decades lobbying against virtually every gun safety measure — from background checks on all gun sales to assault weapon bans and ghost gun regulations. But there’s one emerging threat that should have gun manufacturers racing to support regulation: 3D-printed firearms.
Yet statements from the industry’s trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), on 3D-printed guns are laughably outdated and false. The NSSF’s current “fact sheet” on 3D-printed guns was written in November 2020. Incredibly, for a public statement on a technology as quickly evolving as 3D printing, the NSSF’s fact sheet is nearly identical to one that was available on its website in August 2016.
The NSSF fact sheet claims that “it costs many thousands of dollars and many hours to produce” a 3D-printed gun, a patently false statement in the era of 3D printers that cost $200. The fact sheet also includes the blatantly out-of-date claim that “[t]here have been no reports of a criminal using 3D printing to manufacture a firearm.” Also false. Demonstrating NSSF’s willful blindness to the threat, the outdated fact sheet even boldly predicts that “criminals are not inclined to use — and will likely never use — 3D printing to produce firearms.” With predictions like that, no one is about to confuse the NSSF for Nostradamus. One high-profile assassination and dozens of crimes involving 3D-printed guns demonstrate the NSSF’s unreliable predictions and willingness to mislead the public.
Whether by indifference or ignorance, this refusal to grapple with the cresting wave of public safety threats from 3D-printed guns is costing the industry.
How 3D-Printed Guns Impact the Industry
We here at The Smoking Gun won’t waste ink making the public safety case, as that doesn’t seem to move the needle for the gun industry. But 3D-printed firearms represent a direct threat to the gun industry’s business model. When someone prints a Glock-style frame at home for $50 in materials instead of buying a $500 pistol from a licensed dealer, that’s money the industry loses — even if the person uses commercially made parts to complete their homemade gun. When teenagers manufacture and sell firearms from their bedrooms — as has happened in places like Seattle, Detroit, and Utica — they’re competing directly with established manufacturers like Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer.
One website that hosts 3D-printed gun files reports that a single popular gun design has been downloaded over 15,000 times. Each of these downloads represents a potential lost customer for a firearms manufacturer. Additionally, advancements in 3D printing have led to designs like the FGC-9, whose name stands for “F*** Gun Control 9mm,” which can be assembled without any traditionally manufactured gun parts whatsoever. No barrel, slide, firing pin to purchase from a gun retailer — just plastic filament, metal tubing from a hardware store, and springs. These designs were explicitly designed to circumvent the need for any commercially manufactured firearm components.
Well-established gun makers like Colt, Winchester, and Remington have built their reputations over more than a century. But as 3D-printed firearms become more prevalent, those same brands will compete in the public consciousness with homemade guns that can be printed overnight by anyone with a few hundred bucks and an internet connection. As just one example, when a 3D-printed “Not-A-Glock” is recovered at a crime scene, the Glock name gets dragged through the news cycle anyway. The brand suffers the reputational damage while seeing none of the revenue. Copyright and brand issues alone should incentivize the gun industry to action.
The Industry’s Silence Is Deafening
The NSSF has positioned itself as the guardian of the “lawful” firearm industry and regularly publishes reports claiming to support “real solutions” to gun violence. Yet the organization has been virtually silent on 3D-printed firearms, even as these weapons increasingly turn up at crime scenes, in the hands of prohibited persons, and in the arsenals of violent extremists.
This silence is particularly striking given the NSSF’s history of aggressive lobbying. But when it comes to technology that directly competes with its members’ products, undermines their brands, and arms criminals without background checks? Crickets.
Trade associations like the NSSF are, by definition, intended to advocate for the economic interests of their members. It is a complete abdication of its core mission to not address the economic and brand threats of DIY guns to established manufacturers. One might speculate that the NSSF’s constant propagandizing that any gun regulation will inevitably lead to gun confiscation has effectively boxed it in: The NSSF has so effectively primed gun rights absolutists to see any reform as tyrannical that the it cannot even act on a threat as obvious as 3D-printed firearms out of fear of significant backlash from its base.
But failing to act would be remarkably shortsighted. The 3D-printed gun movement was founded by extremists who explicitly aimed to make traditional firearms regulation obsolete on the way to undermining the government’s ability to enforce any law. Cody Wilson, who released the first 3D-printed gun design, said his goal was to ensure “the technology will break gun control.” Jacob Duygu, creator of the FGC-9, was a violent misogynist and antisemite who wanted to arm extremists in countries with strong gun laws. These designers view licensed firearms manufacturers as part of the regulatory system they’re trying to destroy.
The industry is being undercut by actors who don’t share its purported interest in “lawful” commerce, who actively celebrate when their designs are used in crimes, and who see traditional gun manufacturers as part of the problem.
An Opportunity for Common Ground
3D-printed firearms present a rare issue where the gun industry’s financial interests align with public safety. No one benefits from unlicensed people, including children, criminals, and extremists, being able to manufacture their own untraceable firearms at home. Traditional manufacturers lose sales. Law enforcement can’t trace crime guns. The public faces increased danger from armed people who we as a society have agreed should not have access to guns.
If the gun industry wants to preserve its business model, maintain its brands’ value, and avoid a regulatory backlash, it needs to speak out and start demanding action. So far, the industry doesn’t appear to be doing anything. And that inaction is going to cost gun makers — in reputation, in revenue, and ultimately in relevance as the technology they’re ignoring transforms the firearms landscape without them.