Regulating 3D Printed Guns: A Critical Analysis

Introduction

The debate on how to regulate 3D printed guns has garnered significant attention, especially from those advocating for stronger firearm control measures. However, a critical evaluation of the claims surrounding 3D printed guns reveals that the actual threat they pose is often exaggerated. This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the current state of technology, the practicality of regulation, and the overall potential dangers and benefits.

The Alleged 3D Printed Gun Threat

There is a widespread belief that 3D printed, all-plastic guns pose a serious threat. However, the reality is quite different. Firstly, no such gun has been successfully created in the all-plastic form necessary for widespread use. Even if one were to exist, it would likely be structurally unsound and unable to function effectively beyond a handful of shots.

Moreover, the concept of an "undetectable" 3D printed gun is also questionable. For a functional and safe firearm, critical metal components such as the ammo barrel and cylinder sleeves are necessary. These components cannot be replicated using typical 3D printing technology. Additionally, the cost of high-capability 3D printers is prohibitively expensive, ranging from $7,000 to $28,000. This makes building a 3D printed gun a costly and impractical endeavor.

Cost and Practicality

The notion that printing a gun using a 3D printer is a practical and cost-effective solution is flawed. In many cases, constructing a simple 'zip gun' using inexpensive materials from a hardware store would be a far more accessible and affordable option. A zip gun, while unregulated and potentially dangerous, does not carry the same liability concerns as a fully functional 3D printed firearm.

The Concern of Centralized Authority

Centralizing authority over 3D printing to address the issue of 3D printed guns would be challenging and ineffective. The technology has already spread widely, and implementing comprehensive regulations would require significant governmental effort and resources. Additionally, it would be nearly impossible to control every potential 3D printer in circulation. As demonstrated by the example given, possessing a nail, a bullet, 3D printer CAD software, internet access, and a few hours of study could theoretically enable someone to print a firearm.

Existing Legal Framework

It is important to recognize that the legal framework for manufacturing firearms already exists. For instance, anyone with a drill press and a chunk of aluminum can legally build a working rifle. This chunk of aluminum is not regulated and does not bear a serial number, making it a legal component to use in firearm construction. Even the jig used to remove the aluminum from the chunk and create a functional firearm is not regulated.

The cost of acquiring a 3D printer is not likely to deter those determined to create a firearm. The cost difference between a 3D printer and a drill press is minimal, and this does not stop individuals from constructing firearms if they desire to do so. Therefore, attempting to regulate 3D printed guns alone would be an ineffective use of resources.

Conclusion

While the concept of 3D printed guns is intriguing, the practicality of such weapons and the reality of their creation are deeply flawed. The current legal framework for manufacturing firearms is already robust, and the cost and practicality of 3D printed guns make them an impractical weapon. Instead of focusing on regulating 3D printed guns, efforts should be directed towards broader gun control measures that target the broader issue of firearm safety and regulation.