You know how you watch a sci-fi movie that has "out of this world" technology, and then some years later, that fiction becomes a reality? That is sort of the idea with 3D-printed items. We used to think the ability to create items from a 3D printer was magic or hokum. Now it is becoming more and more of a reality. Not only is it becoming a reality, it is becoming more of a threat that one of the 3D-printed items are 3D-printed guns. I bring this up because of recent federal court proceedings. During the Obama administration, an anarchist named Cody Wilson published blueprints online on how to construct a 3D-printed gun. The Obama administration was successful in blocking the dissemination of such information. Last month, the Trump administration reverse the Obama administration's decision by having the Department of State settle with Wilson. However, eight states filed a lawsuit to block Trump's agreement with Wilson.
The concern about 3D-printed guns is that of safety. 3D-printed guns could not only decrease manufacturing costs, but increase accessibility to firearms. There is particular concern about giving such access to hardened criminals, minors, and those who are mentally ill. This increased supply and accessibility of firearms could lead to an increased homicide rate, one that could be more difficult to contain once this Pandora's box has been opened. On top of that, there is a national security concern. 3D-printed guns could also create a national security issue because the plastic parts of a 3D-printed gun would be invisible by a metal detector. How valid are the concerns brought up by gun control proponents?
Traceable guns. The idea behind the 3D-printed guns is that they will come without serial numbers, which means that criminal investigators would have one less avenue to trace guns to their users. One is that the files for the 3D blueprints are traceable. A second point, one I have brought up before, is that criminals are more likely to acquire their firearms through someone they know in the criminal world than they are to go through the laborious background check.
Are 3D-printed guns killing machines? 3D-printer tech experts are divided on whether 3D-printed guns are a practical choice for criminals. With the current technology, the 3D printer doesn't simply spit out a firearm. The 3D-printer can only build 80 percent of a firearm receiver. Even with the receiver, you need the technological know-how to build the remaining 20 percent. After that, there is the question of whether or not they properly fire. Given where the technology currently stands, 3D-printed guns are not a significant threat to society. The thing one could counter with is that with economic and technological development, products generally become cheaper and of better quality over time. Yes, 3D-printers are currently expensive and product quality is questionable at best. However, that will in all probability change down the road. The good news is that right now, 3D printers are not a practical choice for criminals.
Metal Detectors. Right now, this is not a valid concern. The first thing is the Undetectable Firearms Act, a Reagan-era bill that says that a firearm needs at least some metal. There is also the matter that ammunition is still made of metal. The third thing is that security guards can be trained to look for plastic firearms, much like they are trained to be on the lookout for other unconventional weapons.
What do we go from here? I think if we look at the current state of 3D-printed guns now, they are not a significant threat. However, the concern is not right now, but an inevitable future in which 3D-printing will only become more advanced. Experts at Rand Corporation admit that firearms are already cheap and attainable in the United States. On the other hand, they express concern that homegrown terrorists or lone-wolf attackers could more easily attack weapons where they are currently prohibited (e.g., schools).
The question is whether there is policy that could slow down the growth of 3D-printing or somehow prevent certain individuals access. If there is a way to make sure dangerous people are prohibited such access while making sure everyone else's Second Amendment rights are protected, I'm all for that. However, there is some skepticism if such a targeted policy could be created, let alone implemented. Regardless of how the federal court case ends, there are already blueprints for 3D-printed guns on the Internet, and it will not be easy for the government to handle dissemination of information on the Internet. There is not going to be a flooding of the streets with 3D-printed guns if Wilson wins his case. It would involve the U.S. government to have China-like control over the Internet, or at least involve an injunction from the U.S. Department of Justice to remove the files from Google. Including blocking software is also futile because a) we cannot reliably detect which software is for firearms, and b) open-source firmware will work around that.
At the end, I think there is an inevitability of 3D-printed guns being easier to produce. That being said, I don't think the concerns about the evolution of 3D-printed guns are unfounded or irrational. Until the technology evolves to a certain level, I cannot really evaluate policy prescriptions. I can say that they are not a significant threat to safety right now. I also cannot say how the debate will end up, especially since the technology is in a nascent phase and not going anywhere anytime soon. For me, this is one of those topics I will keep my eye on over the years to see how gun control policy evolves over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment