I tryed to ansser three times (twice to 300 and once to you) but my mild, respectfuul and nonprophane difrince of opinyon got nooked. It wasn’t about buying factory, but rather bilding using more durable materials and developing manuall skylls.

You’re asking, why? I’m asking, why not? It’s fun to overcome the challenges of 3D printing something that can stand up to the stresses of firing a round. It’s not as simple as download the file and hit print. Maybe my printed gun lasts a few hundred rounds. Maybe it breaks on round two. Time to examine it and find out why it failed. Likewise, why do people build tables out of wood when metal tables will last longer and are stronger? Because they like to.

3D printers enable criminals to have access to firearms that they otherwise wouldn’t. Is that any different than the current “black market” availability? Of course, a single criminal misuse of anything creates a knee-jerk political reaction (how many knew what a Bump Stock was before LV? What about “Glock Switches” in NY and Chicago?), and perhaps that’s your “red herring” point. I would like to see the “ghost gun” numbers broken down to actually “Personally Manufactured Firearms” [ala from an 76 or 80% – via drilling holes or light machining..], 3D printed guns [ala FGC9, etc], or “Factory firearms with no serial number” [eg, likely stolen and serial number filed off]. Of course, those stats don’t change the “legality” and shouldn’t be used to further any restrictions… As you point out, in the US, factory firearms are plentiful, so why the “hassle” of PMF or 3D printing…

I also see this as a 1A challenge – and I think even the ACLU has begrudgingly agreed. “The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers”….

Three rather distinct topics.

One, I do build my own. People who design 3DP guns are brilliant; they (or you, in this case) have to know everything us traditional gunsmiths know, in enough detail to break it down into digestible steps, plus the computer aspect.

Likewise for the people driving innovation in manufacturing.

Both are very different from the people printing a Glock frame instead of a 80%, or making something that will last one or two shots because they found a file, instead of drilling similar holes into materials suitable for lasting thousands. One of my favorite materials for scratchbuilding was always 4130 aircraft tubing. I don’t scratchbuild any more because I don’t want to take my chances in a “Ghost Gun” state, but people who choose to do so will find a lot fewer people trying to “stop the signal” at Aircraft Spruce or McMaster.

I don’t think it’s a red herring.
3D printing is driving innovation in a lot of areas, including gun manufacturing, suppressors, etc. There are lots of 3D-printable polymer options that aren’t “potato-chip-brittle”. Even if the parts aren’t durable, they prove out the fit, form and function, which can then be replaced with durable parts.

If you think 3D printing a functioning firearm is “downloading a file and pushing a button” you’ve obviously never 3D printed anything. I would consider myself fairly knowledgeable having designed and printed a number of things (not necessarily gun related), as well as plenty of “download and print”.

You can go out and buy a pre-built table or bookcase. But using tools to build your own provides a different level of satisfaction. Same with gun manufacturing.

Unlike European gun control (restricting the pressure-bearing components), here in the US we can buy the barrel and all the parts that lock the breech, and polymer-composite frames you can drop from a helicopter or drive over with a truck.

Yet people fixate on “How can I extrude this potato-chip-brittle plastic to make something that’s ‘unique and artistic and my own’ because I downloaded a file and pushed a button?”