By: Colin Murphy

3D printing, a technology only a few decades old, has progressed in quality and affordability. It has moved from the realm of industrial prototype, through cutting-edge design and technology, to finally end up in the homes of hobbyists and enthusiasts. This welcome and useful process has delivered new and affordable solutions to a range of subjects and fields, and has changed the shape of manufacturing from large factories to small bespoke businesses. However, this innovation has also developed a darker side and has been adopted by those with criminal intent, including for the manufacture of firearms. While converted or backstreet guns are not a new phenomenon, the advent of 3D printing has extended the range of people able to obtain a firearm to include those with no practical skills or tools or indeed any criminal connections. In the space of little over a decade, the concept of homemade guns using 3D printing techniques has evolved from a simple yet effective one-shot pistol to a semi automatic hybrid rifle. These firearms have made their way into the hands of criminals and extremists with menacing intent. They have also featured in high-profile shootings with fatal consequences. It is important to acknowledge that this nascent method of firearm production is developing at a rapid speed. Authorities and law enforcement agencies are recognising the growing threat that these firearms pose, and are adapting their understanding, approach and expertise. In addition, legislators around the world are beginning to adapt their laws to address this emerging threat. In the EU, possession of a 3D-printed firearm is an offence, but not possession of, publicity for or distribution of digital blueprints or hard copies. IN THIS BRIEFING • Introduction • 3D printing • Craft production of privately-made firearms . • Progression of 3D printed firearms • Users of 3D printed firearms • Addressing the issue

Members' Research Service PE 775.889 – August 2025

By Taleed El-Sabawi, Shelly Weizman, Regina LaBelle

Civil litigation provides a novel and underutilized source of information about deaths in U.S. jails, particularly when official data are incomplete. This study systematically analyzes verdicts, settlements and judgments to explore patterns in practices linked to preventable mortality in U.S jails. Results: Content analysis of facts alleged in 90 cases filed between 2015 and 2020 revealed thematic patterns related to inadequate or delayed medical care. Alleged facts routinely included observable signs of serious medical need—such as incoherence, convulsions, or pleas for help—followed by failures to provide timely or medically appropriate care. In cases of suicide, allegations commonly describe known mental health conditions, discontinued medication, and lapses in monitoring or suicide prevention protocols. Despite repeated warnings—by the individuals themselves, fellow incarcerated persons, or family members—jail staff frequently failed to act. A small subset of cases resulted in judgments for the defense, often where some care was provided or protocols were followed, even if outcomes were still fatal. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in cases resulting in reported settlements, verdicts or judgments incustody deaths in the U.S. could be prevented through improved intake screening, timely medical monitoring, care coordination, and adherence to established protocols. Litigation records offer important insight into how systemic failures contribute to jail mortality, with implications for policy, public health, and correctional practice.

By Everytown for Gun Safety, Everytown Research & Policy

For centuries, self-defense laws have given people the right to protect themselves. Shoot First laws, also known as Stand Your Ground laws, go beyond these long-standing principles, aggressively altering criminal law to shield a person who claims self-defense from being arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for using deadly force. In 2005, Florida enacted the first modern Shoot First law, an effort backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), during a time when they were making concerted efforts to reverse declining gun sales.2 Working with the gun lobby, the American Legislative Exchange Council pushed to turn Florida’s law into a template for a national campaign.3 Now in 29 states,4 these laws change the nature of self-defense, turning everyday disputes into deadly confrontations. Far from empowering victims, Shoot First laws lower the threshold for justifiable homicide, encouraging the escalation of petty arguments and armed vigilantism. 

Although the gun lobby created these laws under the pretense of empowering and protecting victims of crime, the data overwhelmingly shows that the statutes have failed at this. Research on Shoot First laws indicates that they increase gun deaths, leading to hundreds of deaths every year that would not have occurred otherwise. These laws also consistently fail to protect vulnerable communities; in addition to increased risk of victimization in Shoot First states, convictions are unfairly skewed against people of color and women. 

In the decades since the first Shoot First law was enacted, no research shows that these laws lead to better outcomes for anyone. Shoot First was created to solve a problem that does not exist—and Americans are paying the price.