User:Jasper van Loenen/thesis

< TITLE HERE > Jasper van Loenen

Thesis submitted as writing component to the Master Media Design & Communication Programme, Piet Zwart Institute, Willem de Kooning Academy, 2013

Writing Support: Steve Rushton

Tutorial support: Aymeric Mansoux

Course Director: Simon Pummell  

Introduction

With the introduction of the so called first fully 3D printed pistol (Forbes, 2013, 0330), there has come an end to the innocence of 3D printing, which up to now has been seen as one of the most promising new ways of production. And by releasing the files for free online, everyone supposedly has access to his or her own firearm that can be made in the comfort of your own home. But is this weapon really such a game changer, or can its fame be compared to that of the consumer grade 3D printer itself, which is still in its infancy.

The next industrial revolution

At this point in time, we are said to be at the beginning of the third industrial revolution. Again things are changing in factories – such as a (slow) transition to renewable energy and better ways to store and share this energy (Rifkin, 2009, 0130) – but there are also things changing for smaller companies, individual makers, and consumers. Machines that make physical objects from digital files – computer aided design, or simply CAD – such as laser cutters or 3D printers have already been in use in the industry for decades, but now that they are getting smaller and more affordable they are also becoming available to small producers and hobbyists. By now, there are tens, if not hundreds of different types of 3D printers available that can be purchased fully tested and working, in a kit you only need to assemble, or just as instructions and a list of components you have to source yourself. These printers have become relatively cheap – the well-known MakerBot for instance retails for around 1500 euro [0260] – so more people are able to afford them. This has made the technology better known to the general public and has led to an increase in recognition of its possibilities, with some even going as far as to suggest that in a few years time we will all have our own little factory on our desks (Haegens, 2012, 0003).

While I do believe more and more people will start using 3D printers, I don’t think everyone needs get his or her own machine. First of all, a lot of the cheaper 3D printers are still far from perfect, which means you might have to calibrate them regularly and you need a certain level of know-how about the technology to be able to really use them. Secondly, the majority of users will not use 3D printers on a daily basis. If you just want to print a small object every now and then, it might not be worth your time to learn how to properly use the machine. In that case it makes more sense to get a printer together with some other users so you can help each other, or to find a place that lets you use their machines. All across the world, easily accessible places with manufacturing equipment have been popping up, of which the Fab Labs are probably the best known. Fab Labs offer access to multiple machines – often at least a 3D printer, laser cutter and a milling machine. You get a tutorial on how to use the tools you need and as long as your project is non-commercial and you are willing to share it with other users, you can use their facilities for free. Other places where you can use these machines are hackerspaces, which are more like a shared workshop. Where Fab Labs are most of the time places you go to work on a particular project, the members of hackerspaces often have their own place to work and receive the key to the space so they can go there whenever they want. A third option is to use a commercial company to make your object for you. There are multiple companies that let you upload a file and send you the physical outcome through the mail. These do expect you to know what you are doing and to prepare the files yourself, but combined with the Fab Labs and hackerspaces offer everyone the opportunity to use rapid prototyping techniques.  

The many uses of 3D printing

From the different rapid prototyping techniques, 3D printing has become one of the most popular. Apart from being something almost magical – the design you made on the computer is transformed into a physical object you can hold in your hand – it can be used for a lot of different things. Currently it is being used in the development of airplanes [0480], medical implants [0490] and architecture [0500], among many, many more. It also offers options for simple uses at home. Did the plastic clamp holding the light above your kitchen counter break? Take its measurements, create a 3D model and print a new clamp. This might seem like a lot of work for something so small, but there can be multiple advantages to this approach. In some cases – like when you live in a remote area – it might actually be faster and cheaper to recreate the clamp on your own, than to drive to a store to buy one. If buying a new clamp is even possible that is: a lot of producers do not sell spare parts for their products, meaning that when something small breaks, you are not able to just get the broken part replaced and you end up replacing the whole unit – wasting material and money on replacing the parts that still work but can’t be re-used. Another reason to make your own new part is that it might be the perfect occasion to tweak the design a bit. Maybe you want the clamp to be slightly thicker so it will not break as easily next time, or have another hole for an extra screw.

With all kinds of 3D print services being offered and the technique developing quickly, it is a very promising way of making things. But as with all technology, it can also be used for more controversial purposes.

3D printed weapon parts

On 1 July 2012, Michael Guslick, alias Haveblue, posted an image of an AR-15 semi automatic rifle on his website (haveblue.org, 2012, 0070). The whole thing was put together with over the counter parts – which in the United States do not require a weapon license – but for one exception: the lower receiver – the part of the rifle that holds all of the moving parts of the firing mechanism and in the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 counts as the actual firearm. It was the only part that was not store bought: instead, he made it on a 3D printer.

Though this particular blog post resulted in a lot of attention, he actually already shared some earlier designs a long time before, by publishing them on Thingiverse [0210], a website that hosts all kinds of different designs to be made with rapid prototyping – especially 3D printing. In response to the appearance of these file Bre Pettis – CEO of MakerBot Industries, a producer of 3D printers and the owner of Thingiverse – wrote a post on the Thingiverse blog titled “Deadly Weapons on Thingiverse”[0200], explaining how in the beginning of the website they didn’t want to host any weapons, but over time had allowed some toy weapons on the site. Now that the first ‘real’ weapons were being submitted, they were having an internal discussion to decide whether these too were welcome, or not. The blog post made clear they didn’t have an answer yet but they had to come up with one soon: “One thing that’s for sure, the cat is out of the bag and that cat can be armed with guns made with printed parts” (Pettis, 2011, 0200).

Apparently not a lot changed after this discussion. In August 2012 the terms of service did say you were not allowed to share files for the creation of weapons [0030], but they were still there. When Rich Brown – senior editor for tech-site CNET – asked MakerBot why the files were still available [0180] they pointed him to a different section of the terms of service where it says that they – the Thingiverse staff – have the right, but not the obligation, to review any user content. [0031] In other words: you are not allowed to upload weapons, but Thingiverse does not have to take any action when you do. Several months later, MakerBot suddenly decided to enforce their no-weapon rule and removed some – but not all – of the files. According to MakerBot's attorney Richard McCarthy there were multiple events that lead to them taking action, which was done to show the site’s focus on products that “have a positive impact." [0180] One of the events that played a role in this decision might have been the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which took place just a few days earlier. Some of the deleted files were for a similar rifle as one of the weapons CNN reported to have been used in the shooting: the AR-15 (CNN, 2012, 0192).

While these file were meant for building the AR-15’s receiver, they didn’t contain a fully working design, and as Guslick had previously shown on his blog, you would still have to do some additional machining to get his parts to fit properly. Together with the fact that the receiver is only one part of the rifle, it wasn’t as easy as downloading the file and hitting print to obtain a weapon. But that might change.

Defense Distributed, DEFCAD and the Wiki Weapon

In response to the (in their eyes) censorship on Thingiverse, a non-profit organization called Defense Distributed (DD) launched a website to host these banned files: DEFCAD.org – a wordplay on DEFCON, or the U.S. military’s DEFense readiness CONdition, and CAD. The goal of DEFCAD is to and make available as many of the firearms-related files Thingiverse banned as possible host – hence the website’s subtitle: The island of misfit objects. [0013]

Defense Distributed itself had already gotten a lot of attention in the months before. It was founded to work on a project called the Wiki Weapon: an open source, 3D printable firearm that should be printable by consumer grade 3D printers – like the MakerBots mentioned before. On their website they describe the three steps of the project: develop a fully printable firearm using a high resolution industrial printer, then adapt the design to also work on a consumer grade printer, and then become the web’s main resource for printable guns and related objects – such as magazines and silencers. [0060] For the first version of their weapon they assume users already have access to bullets – which in the United States are often easily available – and the weapon will be deemed a success if it can be safely fired at least once. In a later stage of the project they will try to find an alternative to regular bullets.

To develop this Wiki Weapon, they needed money of course – about 20.000 USD to start – and like many projects these days, Defense Distributed turned to crowd funding. The campaign on Indiegogo started off well enough, but after about a month into the fundraiser they ran into a problem when they were told the project violated Indiegogo’s terms of service, as they do not allow the sale of ammunition, firearms or firearms-related parts and accessories (Indiegogo, 2012, 0110). Technically, Defense Distributed did not break this rule since they were not selling anything: they were gathering funds to develop something they would give away for free. Still, their fundraiser on the Indiegogo website was stopped and their account suspended. In an attempt to gather the needed funds in a different way they moved the fundraiser to their own website and let supporters donate using PayPal and Bitcoin. Possibly thanks to the extra attention generated by Indiegogo’s rejection, they still managed to reach their goal.

They used the money to get the equipment needed to develop their weapon: they bought a new computer and a RepRap 3D printer – their target low-cost printer – and leased an industry grade 3D printer from 3D printer manufacturer Stratasys. But not before long they hit another bump in the road, when it had came to Stratasys’ attention that they were planning to use the leased printer to develop a printable weapon. There are certain types of firearms you are not allowed to make without a license, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, but according to CNET’s Rich Brown it is legal to make your own handgun in the United States, as long as you don’t make it with the intention to sell or trade. But even after Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson explained this, Stratasys insisted they were not allowed to do this without a weapon-manufacturing license and as it was their policy to not knowingly allow their printers to be used for illegal purposes, they cancelled the lease contract. Before Wilson even had time to take the machine out of the box, a courier was sent by to collect it. [0220] In the end, all the publicity around the returned printer worked in Defense Distributed’s favor again and they were offered access to another printer and space for ballistic testing (Guardian, 2012, 0270). This time, however, they kept the names of their supporters to themselves to prevent further problems and negative publicity.

The different pieces of the Liberator

Cody Wilson, who is the founder of Defense Distributed, also submitted an application for a federal arms license – which was granted in March 2013. With this license he is allowed to make, distribute and sell weapons in the United States, though he said not to start selling any until he gets an additional license that lets him sell a wider range of weapons, such as fully automatics (Mail Online, 2013, 0420) – which might show part of his intentions beyond the initial Wiki Weapon. Two months after Wilson received his license, on the first of May 2013, Forbes published two photos in an article titled World’s First Entirely 3D-Printed Gun (Forbes, 2013)[0330] showing the first iteration of the actual Wiki Weapon – dubbed the Liberator, named after a one-shot gun used in World War II. The weapon consists of sixteen pieces of which fifteen have been 3D printed; they didn’t manage to print a strong enough firing pin so they used a nail instead. In the days following the reveal, the Liberator was tested and adjusted, leading up to Wilson firing the gun successfully from his hand a few days later. Though the design was still meant to be printed using one of the high quality and expensive printers, on the 6th of May 2013 all of the printable files were published on DEFCAD, meaning Defense Distributed reached its goal of making the first 3D printable handgun that can be fired at least once, and has put it out there for everyone to download by putting the files on their server as a regular download and by distributing them using Bittorrent.

Two days after the files were put online the usefulness of a decentralized system like Bittorrent became apparent, when they were forced to remove the files from DEFCAD. Wilson received a letter from the United Stated Department of State to inform him they started an Investigation into the publication of the Liberator because they consider having the complete files online to be export, for which Defense Distributed does not have the required authorization (Defense Distributed, 2013, 0410). The letter demanded the Liberator and nine other designs to be taken offline, to which Wilson complied, saying: “… we’ll do our part to remove it from our servers”. (Forbes, 2013)[0350] But when you read between the lines you can tell how they really feel about it: they will remove the files from their own servers, but there is nothing they can do about the files on other computers. This has added a great level of redundancy to the availability of the files. They removed them from the DEFCAD website, but all the downloaded versions are still there, and with over 100,000 downloads and ten torrents on The Pirate bay at the moment they received the letter, it will be impossible to get the files offline again. (Slashdot, 2012, 0320)

Cody Wilson

While their website mentions Defense Distributed has eight members [0050], you only really hear and see founder Cody Wilson, a 25 year old law student at the University of Texas, crypto-anarchist – meaning he uses encryption software to keep his digital actions private – and free-market anarchist. Contrary to what you might expect, Wilson – who Wired named as number 14 in their top 15 of most dangerous people in the world (Wired, 2012, 0430) – didn’t start the project because he was such a great fan of weapons. In one of his first interviews, he explained he is more interested in the political aspects involved with 3D printing your own firearm than the weapon itself (MAKE, 2012, 0090). In a video on the Defense Distributed YouTube channel [0014] he also explains the goal of Defense Distributed is not to arm every citizen, but to liberate information. They want to create a situation where you are able and allowed to download and make whatever you want (DXLiberty, 2012, 0100).

When Defense Distributed started their project, they said making a handgun happened kind of by accident. They used weapons knowing it would spark strong emotions all around, but their ideas were broader and could be applied to anything. The main point of the project has more to do with equality than guns (interview with Alex Jones, 2013)[0290] and Wilson keeps repeating that what Defense Distributed does is promoting freedom through the liberation of weapons. He doesn’t believe in licenses (Jones, 2013) [0290] and so the project is about having the freedom to make whatever you want, however you want. In his opinion everyone should be able to make firearms, as there is no way of regulation the components of weapons such as the AR-15 anymore in a time when we have 3D printing and the Internet (Vice, 2013). [0280] Being able to own a gun is the ultimate example of being free and for Wilson, who calls himself a free-market anarchist (Daily News America, 2013) [0390], being able to make it yourself and so bypassing commercial manufacturers is even better.

This is also why I think it was an odd move for Wilson to file for a weapon-manufacturing license – which was granted in March 2013 – as it made them a weapons manufacturer themselves. If the members of Defense Distributed truly don’t believe in licenses you would expect them to fight for their right to print weapons without one – especially because they have been claiming not to be doing anything illegal from the very beginning. Wilson defended this step by saying they wanted to make sure they could work on the project in the U.S., but also to show how licensing and laws slowed down progress after they had their initial idea of making an open source weapon: “I had an idea. I could had done it in a month but because of the licensing regime and laws it took me 40.000 dollars and eight months”, Wilson told Jones. This seems as a fair point to make for a liberal like Wilson, who doesn’t want the government to interfere with its citizens, but getting by the license they are still following the government’s rules just like any other company. It did help them to reach their goal of making the weapon faster, but what does it mean for the rights of their supporters – those who are downloading and printing the files at home. Does this mean they will need to get a license as well? By getting one, Defense Distributed seems to have acknowledged they were not allowed to make their Liberator without one.

Getting the license took away the uncertainties surrounding the legality of developing and printing the Liberator, giving them more time to work on the actual design, but this is actually the least interesting part of the project. Some might have been skeptical about their ability to design a functional weapon using only plastic, but with the quality of modern printers and 3D modeling software – with function like digital stress-testing of a model – most wouldn’t be surprised if they’d succeed, given enough time. The crux of the whole project is not in the physical object itself, but in the ethics of publishing its design online and in such a way that anyone with access to a 3D printer – which, thanks to places like Fab Labs is a rather large group – will be able to print and use it.

Another odd step in Defense Distributed’s approach can be seen in the type of objects they have been working on, such as a thirty rounds magazine. When you start an ambitious project like designing your own plastic gun, it is understandable that you start with something a bit easier to get used to the processes and materials involved. Starting with the lower receiver of an AR-15 was a logical first step and getting it to work properly already offered quite a challenge – the part has to be able to endure a lot of force and the first prototypes would break after only a few shots. The next part they released was a thirty round magazine for a semi-automatic rifle, and again this can be an interesting part that can help you to design the more complex weapon later on. But where you can normally only buy magazines that hold ten rounds, this one was able to hold thirty. They willingly choose to not just copy an existing magazine to learn how to make one, but to add another provocative layer to it – as if a printed handgun on its own wouldn’t be provocative enough already.

Liberator vs. other do-it-yourself guns

In the comment section of Guslick’s blog opponents of making 3D printed weapons showed their concern because they are afraid these kinds of projects will get 3D printers banned. “Just like the government took away and legislated all the mills and lathes that home gunsmiths had been using for decades. Oh wait, that never happened”, Guslick jokingly responded to one such comment (Guslick, 2012, 0009). It is true amateurs have been making guns long before 3D printers became available. A quick search on Google shows there are many instructional websites [0005], videos [0006] and commercial kits [0007] available for whoever is interested in making his or her own gun. One example even shows how someone made a working receiver for the famous AK-47 rifle out of a rusty old shovel he bought at a garage sale. [0008] But with its spring-loaded nail for a firing pin and an inaccurate plastic barrel, the Liberator looks more like a zip gun than a pistol. [0460]

The different pieces of the Liberator

Zip guns are makeshift guns made using existing materials that are often associated with gangs, but also made by hobbyists [0440]. They consist of only the essential pieces of a gun: the chamber, barrel and something to use as firing pin – you can already make one with just a metal pen, a rubber band and a screwdriver. Though often not very safe, they are easy to make and cost next to nothing. And printing a Liberator is certainly not any faster than making a zip gun. After hitting print you have to wait about five hours for the process to finish – more than enough time to drive down to the local hardware shop to get some tubing to build a zip gun with.

Still, there are some differences as well. If you decide to make a zip gun, you need to search for or think of a design to use. It doesn’t have to – and often won’t – be very complicated, but you still have to put it together. With the Liberator, anyone who has access to the right printer can make it. With the files online it didn’t take long for 3D printer owners to start printing and adjusting the design of the Liberator. Because not every 3D printer is the same, weapon experts are afraid some will use printers that are not capable of making strong enough prints: they might not be able to withstand the ballistic pressures and stresses, possibly leading to the weapon exploding in the user’s hand (The Guardian, 2013).[0400] It is not unlikely that someone who tries to use a Liberator will indeed get hurt. Even Wilson agrees it is not the question if someone will hurt himself so much as when it will happen, but thinks it is the user’s responsibility (Vice, 2013). [0280] But when you release something like this to such a large audience, can you really expect everyone to carefully think about what it is they’re doing? According to Nick Bilton, who has been covering consumer 3D printing for the New York Times since the early beginnings, teenagers make the majority of the 3D printer users and so there is a good chance they will be among the first to actually print their own gun. [0280] Can you really expect a group of experimenting teens to be responsible? Back in 2011 when Thingiverse asked their audience what they should do with the weapon files on the site, some users suggested to use some sort of filter system to keep the files away from minors. Most websites promoting products not intended for minors implement a simple age verification system where you have to enter your date of birth before you are granted access to the site. This is only a formality of course: nothing will stop you from entering a false date to get in. And even if you somehow managed to keep minors out, you can’t stop users from copying the site’s contents and uploading it to other websites or distribute them using peer-to-peer systems.

Terrorist potential

Many are afraid the Liberator is going to be used by terrorists because it is easy to make and is made out of plastic. In the printing instructions that come with the Liberator, they tell you to start with printing only the frame of the gun and to insert a piece of metal into the print when done. This will enable metal detectors to detect the gun, as required by the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. [0470] The print of the Liberator shown and tested by Wilson had this metal piece inside, but since it is a non-functional element, you can’t be sure everyone who prints it will put it in there. That it can be made without was shown when two Mail on Sunday journalists printed the Liberator and took it with them on the Eurostar train to Paris (Mail on Sunday, 2013, 0340). They had no problem whatsoever smuggling the separate parts of the Liberator through the “airport-style” security – including metal detectors. To further lower the risk of getting caught, they divided the pieces between the two of them – though I wonder if the security officers would have recognized the pieces if they were found during frisking. Once on board, they could easily assemble the weapon in the toilet – out of other passengers’ view.

They went on their trip to see if you could actually get a 3D printed weapon through security, but there are two things to note here. First of all, their legal team advised against testing the weapon and so they never tried to actually fire it. I think that when you are doing such a test, you should at least try to find out if your version of the weapon really works; only printing it doesn’t proof anything. As the original print by Defense Distributed was made on a different type of printer, there is a very real chance of the journalists’ print being slightly different – for all they know the gun would have exploded in their hands. Secondly, they didn’t bring a firing pin or bullet with them on the train – again out of safety concern. Until they manage to bring the whole set of needed parts – including the two metal elements – onto the train, they didn’t smuggle a gun in at all; just some useless pieces of plastic.

In response to security not finding the weapon, Former Labour security minister Lord West told the Daily Mail how more sophisticated scanners might be able to also detect printed guns (2013). Now, they use x-ray scanners that can see inside your luggage and – using image-recognition software – can detect pre-programmed types of shapes. These will be able to recognize a firearm when it knows its basic form; the vertical grip and horizontal barrel of a regular pistol for instance. But this will only work when it knows what to look for. Of course you could teach the scanners to recognize the Liberator, or even every one of its separate parts, but you would only be able to find a 3D print that uses the original design. If someone changes the shape of the weapon, lets say to resemble Mickey Mouse’s head, the scanner will still be none the wiser – though you would still have to find a way to bring the nail and a bullet.

Responsibility of other parties

Apart from Defense Distributed there are a lot of other parties involved in the creation of the Liberator. During – or actually even before – the development, Stratasys was the first to pick a side in the Wiki Weapon debate by declining Defense Distributed the use of their printer. It is understandable that Stratasys didn’t want them to use their machines to make weapon – they are a company after all, and I can imagine they were afraid of attracting bad publicity, or to somehow be held responsible might the project go awry. Especially since Defense Distributed leased the machine and so Stratasys was still the owner, they had to right to take it back. But it was quickly discovered Stratasys does not have any principal objections against printing firearms or related objects. In fact, one of their clients is Remington Arms, who claim to be the largest producer of shotguns and rifles in the United States, and odds are this is not their only client in the firearms industry as Stratasys has been a regular exhibitor at the Shot Show in Las Vegas – one of the biggest trade shows for shooting sports, hunting and law enforcement industries. (Wired, 2012, 0018)

Now that Defense Distributed finished the first version of the Liberator, they will move on to part two of their plan: adapting the design to work on their RepRap printer. With that one, they will probably have fewer problems than with Stratasys. First of all because this machine is bought and so there is no lease contract that can be canceled. Secondly because the RepRap project is completely open, allowing you to use the hardware in any way you want. Its developers are against using the printer for making weapons and might distance themselves from the Wiki Weapon project, but they know there isn’t much they can do to stop them:

“Every manufacturing technology that humanity has ever come up with has been used to make weapons, and doubtless RepRap will be no exception. There is no absolute way to stop this, any more than one could stop someone buying a second-hand lathe on eBay and using that to turn up all sorts of very nasty objects. However, the RepRap researchers will work actively to inhibit and to subvert the use of RepRap for weapons production, whether by individuals, companies, or governments. And we will remove any such designs from this site. … Give people an internal combustion engine and a few will make tanks; but many more will make ambulances.” (RepRap Wiki, 2008) [0230]

Being only the suppliers of the technique used, they can’t really do anything else than try to discourage the production of weapons. If you’d try to make certain uses of the printers illegal you would also have to make these laws for the firing pin nail. It wouldn’t make much sense to connect the legislation to 3D printers in general; when a new rapid prototyping technique is developed you will have the same problem all over again. The only feasible kind of legislation would be one that is aimed at the product itself, instead of the way in which it is made. Democrat representative Steve Israel has been following Defense Distributed’s developments from the beginning and after the publication of the Liberator offered a bill to ban the manufacturing of guns that are completely made out of plastic, no matter how it’s made. [0370] But even if you’d succeed in getting such a law approved, it will not have any effect on the Liberator’s files, which are still out there. It might stop a curious hobbyist from printing the weapon and displaying it out in the open, but if someone wants to make it to commit a crime I doubt if such a law will make him change his mind, as the crime itself is already punishable. A better way might be to more strictly regulate the sale of ammunition, but this could prove an even greater challenge because it can be used in all kinds of firearms, not just plastic ones. Prohibiting the publication of the blueprints online, like the Department of State has done with the Liberator files will also not sort a lot of effect, as it would be trivial to have the files uploaded from within another country to bypass United States’ law. Again, this would be especially hard to prevent if the files were to be released directly into the Bittorrent network.

Luckily for Defense Distributed, there are a lot of Bittorrent users who are not afraid to host the files – seeding, in Bittorrent jargon. From all of the people who downloaded the files, only a small portion will probably really open the files in a modeling program and try to make adjustments. The proof that some will, was presented in the form of the updated Lulz Liberator [0450], made by someone only known as Joe. This derivative of the original Liberator uses a different kind of plastic – one that’s often used with consumer-grade printers – and replaced some plastic rods with metal nuts and bolts so it becomes strong enough to be fired multiple times. Though Joe agrees with Wilson’s views, he hasn’t released the files for his new design (yet).

Conclusion

Though the Liberator sparked a lot of debate, it isn’t really something new at this point. People have been making simple guns for years, and the novelty of this gun – being made out of plastic – is neutralized by the need for a metal firing pun and regular bullets. It doesn’t provide anyone with an instant weapon either because of the need for a professional and expensive printer to make it. However, it does show us how technological progress can sometimes go faster than we expect which doesn’t leave us with a lot of time to react. The release of the Liberator won’t be the end, especially because this was only the first version of the weapon and the files are available for everyone; it will be improved, either by Defense Distributed or someone else.

It will be very hard, if not impossible, to stop these developments. <expand>