3D Printed Guns Controversy (Research Paper Sample)

Student's Name
Professor's Name
Course
Date
3D Printed Guns Controversy
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 enabled 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 the criminal use of guns, particularly public shootings and the killing of innocent people, have influenced Congress to consider passing legislation to ban the creation of guns by 3D printing. Although they are primarily made of plastics, they can fire standard handgun rounds. According to the U.S. Undetectable Firearm Act, a metal detector must spot every firearm. However, plastic guns can run afoul and allow criminals to use them while hiding their identities (Gjelten). Congress has realized that emerging technology threatens the public since anyone can create a gun and 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 promoting violence. Today, many Americans fear the misuse of guns and consider them a threat to their safety (Zhou). They 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 many people's safety. 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 can use paper printing to develop fraud instruments, 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. Technology has brought fascinating technological advancements, such as amazing flights of fancy (Hanrahan). It has supported total freedom of thought, 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, manufacturing, 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, 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 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 without manufacturing them at home.
Congress should realize that 3D technology is not the problem, but ineffective gun control policies are to blame for the devastating situation. The government can ensure traceability by requiring manufacturers of 3D printers to register them from an established central registry website and the lack of unique serial numbers issue (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. Effective regulatory measures can only be developed 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 law developers. When attempting to establish a solution to an existing problem, Congress should focus on the actual cause rather than addressing one concern by creating a different problem.
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 clarified 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 threatening the public. The Supreme Court stated "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 Amendmen