3D Printed Guns Controversy

Paper Info
Page count 5
Word count 1386
Read time 5 min
Subject Jurisprudence
Type Research Paper
Language 🇺🇸 US

The 3D printing technology enables the development of three-dimensional physical objects using an inexpensive and relatively small machine resembling a desktop paper printer. The innovation has raised concern among regulators since it has made it possible for criminals to “print” weapons at home (Talbot and Adam 101). However, proponents of the technology have insisted that a better strategy to address the issue of gun control should be established other than rejecting the beneficial advancement. This paper intends to discuss the interest of Congress in passing legislation to ban the creation and use of 3D printed guns and evaluate the objection and arguments of libertarians.

The rising deaths associated with criminal use of gun particularly public shooting and the killing of innocent people has influenced Congress to consider passing legislation to ban the creation of gun by 3D printing. Although they are primarily made of plastics, they can fire standard handgun rounds. According to the US Undetectable Firearm Act, a metal detector must spot every firearm. However, plastic guns can run afoul and give room for criminals to use them while hiding their identity (Gjelten). Congress has realized that emerging technology poses a threat to the public since anyone can create a gun and eventually use it irresponsibly. As a caring government, Congress is determined to push for legislation to obstruct the creation of illegal guns.

The majority of the American population understands the danger of possessing guns, particularly in promoting violence. Many people lose their lives annually, with gun massacres horrifying the public. Today, many Americans fear the misuse of guns and consider them a threat to their safety (Zhou). It is their wish to have guns regulated and only allowed to responsible owners since they no longer require them for their safety. Moreover, technology is pioneering and changing the way of life, and threatening the safety of many people. 3D has made it possible to duplicate and attain mass production of anything.

One of the most common arguments that libertarians offer in favor of 3D-printed guns is that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the “right… to keep and bear [a]rms,” since the Supreme Court considers it fundamental and individual (Zhou). Gun control advocates argue that government should avoid focusing on the technology applied in 3D printing but rather consider regulating its unintended use. Although criminals to develop fraud instruments can use paper printing, it is necessary to understand that innovation has many benefits (Lopez). Creative development should be embraced and celebrated instead of inhibiting it because a few people could be misusing it.

It is necessary to consider the aspect of gun control and 3D printing conceptually separate. The technology has brought largely fascinating technological advancements such as amazing flights of fancy (Hanrahan). This implies that it has supported total freedom in thoughts, indicating that new ideas can bring beneficial outcomes that cannot be ignored. The aspect of gun control is different from the manufacturing method (Lopez). The realities of guns should form the basis of effective control that Congress should use instead of fighting innovative ideas. The aim should be controlling the possession and creation of guns but not 3D printing.

On the contrary, Congress is determined to pass the legislation because the 3D printing technology makes it extremely difficult for the government to achieve its objective of gun control. These guns circumvent existing policies implying that they are dangerous and expose the lives of every citizen to a threat (Gjelten). Since they lack serial numbers and anyone can manufacture them, they are referred to as “ghost guns”. Congress should influence the establishment of better rules to hinder the selling, manufacture, and storing of printed guns since their origin cannot be verified. Moreover, any firearm must have detectable metal to support the government in controlling guns (Talbot and Adam 102). Background checks are required in a gun store to determine whether one is allowed by law to own a rifle. However, it is no longer possible with 3D guns since anyone can use and own the blueprints.

Libertarians can respond to this argument by stating that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a handgun at home. Since people are allowed to possess the weapon, it means that they have a constitutional right to create it. This is justifiable because citizens have a right to own “arms” to boost their security and promote their self-defense. It is a logical corollary to grant the right to create since transportation and purchasing are permitted. Moreover, guns are widely available for purchase, and any interested person can easily access them even without the need for manufacturing at home.

Congress should realize that 3D technology is not the problem, but ineffective gun control policies are to blame for the devastating situation. On the issue of lack of unique serial numbers, the government can ensure traceability by requiring manufacturers of the 3D printers to register them from an established central registry website (Zhou). All the necessary details can be included in a metal plate attached to the gun and include the manufacturer’s name, contacts, and owner if deemed necessary. The development of effective regulatory measures can only be possible if Congress considers eliminating politics when addressing important issues affecting the country (Saunders). Powerful lobbying forces and strong emotions should not be allowed to compromise the integrity of the law developers. When attempting to establish a solution to an existing problem, Congress should focus on the actual cause of the issue rather than addressing one concern by creating a different one on the other side.

In response to the libertarian’s argument, Congress would argue that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to unpermitted guns. According to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, the Second Amendment only protects the legal use of guns and insists that the right is limited. Other courts have upheld the ruling to enhance the fight against the misuse of guns (Zhou). At the beginning of the Second Amendment, it is stated, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court offered a deeper explanation of the clause in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Gjelten). The court made it clear that the right to own a gun was only meant for traditional legal purposes such as self-defense.

The right to have a gun must be unconnected to militia activities which is a threat to the public. The Supreme Court stated that “the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” implying that guns should remain dissembled or trigger-locked when kept at home. The Heller Court stated, “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” since it does not permit anyone to carry and keep guns for whatever purpose and in any manner whatsoever (Gjelten). Anyone creating and owning a gun must be responsible enough to use it for the legal purpose as stated in the law. However, with 3D-printed guns, it is difficult to control their use and possession because they are manufactured and sold without the consent of the government.

Based on the raised issues, Libertarians would respond by stating that the 3D printing technology should not be condemned because of distracting the existing gun control measures. Many technologies can be used inappropriately to conduct a crime or threaten public security. For instance, the invention of the “auto-mobile”, moving independently without human control, saw some jurisdictions develop laws to fight and criminalize robbery-by-auto (Saunders). Although cars made it easier for robbers to execute their mission, the problem was not the technology but rather immoralities in society (Zhou). Similarly, 3D technology has many benefits that can transform the world if taken positively.

In conclusion, 3D printing has made it easier for people to create guns, making it difficult for the government to control weapons. The technology engenders the public, particularly when applied to serve illegal purposes. Congress has a reason to become concerned considering the rising cases of mass killings in schools and public places. However, the legal regulatory body must pay attention to the problem of guns instead of abandoning a technology that can bring many benefits. Efforts should be made to obstruct the criminal application by addressing its unique aspect. Congress should understand that guns kill but not 3D printer technology.

Works Cited

Gjelten, E.A. “The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns?” Lawyers.com, 2020, Web.

Hanrahan, Jake. “3D-Printed Guns Are Back And This Time They Are Unstoppable.” Wired, 2019, Web.

Lopez, German. “The Battle To Stop 3D-Printed Guns, Explained.” Vox. 2018, Web.

Saunders, Sarah. “The Debate Over 3D Printed Guns Rages on Around the US.” 3DR HOLDINGS, 2018, Web.

Talbot, Thaddeus, and Adam Skaggs. “Regulating 3D-Printed Guns Post-Heller: Why Two Steps Are Better Than One.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethi cs, vol. 48, no. 4_suppl, 2020, pp. 98-104.

Zhou, Marrian. “3D-Printed Gun Controversy: Everything You Need To Know.” CNET, 2018, Web.

Cite this paper

Reference

EduRaven. (2022, June 14). 3D Printed Guns Controversy. Retrieved from https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/

Reference

EduRaven. (2022, June 14). 3D Printed Guns Controversy. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/

Work Cited

"3D Printed Guns Controversy." EduRaven, 14 June 2022, eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.

References

EduRaven. (2022) '3D Printed Guns Controversy'. 14 June.

References

EduRaven. 2022. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.

1. EduRaven. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.


Bibliography


EduRaven. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.

References

EduRaven. 2022. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.

1. EduRaven. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.


Bibliography


EduRaven. "3D Printed Guns Controversy." June 14, 2022. https://eduraven.com/3d-printed-guns-controversy/.