The decision by gun rights activist Cody Wilson to publish “how-to” online manuals for the construction of 3D-printed firearms, itself the result of a Trump Administration decision to reverse Obama-era gun regulations, has sparked a debate about the likely social consequences of making such weapons available to the general public.
3D-printed firearms are made of plastic and all they require is the gun blueprints and a 3D printer. Thanks to Wilson, but pending court approval, the schematics will be freely available on the internet. The printer can set you back anywhere between $349 and $3,500 depending on specifications. By comparison, the cost of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, one of the weapons that Wilson says can be printed using his plans, is estimated at anywhere between $800 and several thousand dollars.
{mosads}What worries many people, myself included, is not the relative affordability of home-made plastic weapons — it is that these firearms are undetectable and anyone with the money to buy a 3D-printer can build them. Since the purchase of a printer does not come with a background check or gun licensing requirement, individuals with a criminal record, domestic abusers, terrorists, people with no firearms training and experience whatsoever, and teenage kids could all potentially get their hands on a freshly printed plastic firearm.
Advocates for 3D printed guns say that such arguments are either naïve or intentionally misleading. Based on current technology, home 3D printers cannot be used to print such firearms, only industrial quality versions that cost tens of thousands. What’s more, the quality of plastic available is not really suitable for firing bullets and it will melt. Case closed, there are no real social consequences to 3D printed firearms, only an opportunity for gun control advocates to make a fuss.
This perspective seems to overlook how quickly new markets beget both buyers and sellers, and how quickly innovation occurs — including technological change — when there is demand.
Take the example of recreational marijuana. Since Colorado legalized pot in 2014, an entire industry has developed selling an impressive variety of cannabis products, from edibles to cooking oil to topical ointments. There are even websites that provide descriptions and product ratings just as Consumer Reports rates TVs and appliances.
What does legalization of pot have to do with market availability of 3D printed firearms? The morale of the marijuana legalization story is that market competition and demand has led to product innovation, as anyone who has taken Econ 101 would have expected.
The wide availability of the blueprints is likely to drive up demand for 3D printers that can print high-quality firearms and plastics that are more suitable for firing bullets. There is little doubt that the market will respond. It may take five or even 10 years, but eventually a high quality, cost-effective product will be developed.
As the technology improves and becomes more widely available at a lower cost, more people will buy them. We live in a consumerist society where the ability to buy things both denotes status and operates as a stress release mechanism.
Research suggests that a gun is a status symbol that functions as an expression of masculinity and whiteness. It is only if we take into account the social and psychological role of firearms in American society that we can start to understand why a gun owning household has an average of eight to 10 guns.
Fear of crime does not explain this accumulation of firearms nor its concentration in the hands of more affluent, white Americans, people who tend to have a lot less exposure to crime than minorities. So, as barriers of cost and gun regulation become obsolete, more people will own more guns.
At this stage, the best-case scenario, is that the number of accidents will increase as more people with little training in firearms will acquire guns and use them and store them improperly. The worst-case scenario is that people intent on crime and violence will get ever easier access to weapons that cannot be detected by metal detectors.
We already have witnessed the phenomenon of armed teenagers killing scores of their classmates. Part of the mass shooting debate has focused on prevention and detection. Parents, faced with a teen who seems to have social adjustment problems and shows an interest in firearms, are expected to intervene and seek medical help.
Yet, in the aftermath of these tragedies, how many times have we seen family members who had not put two and two together. How likely is it, I wonder, that parents who see their teen fiddling with a computer and a printer will be alerted that something is amiss?
The United States is the only Western country that has an epidemic of gun violence. Despite protestations that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and “more guns, less crime,” an accumulation of high quality research shows that the proliferation of firearms as a result of weak regulation has contributed significantly to this problem. The experience of other countries, especially those with large numbers of gun owners such as Switzerland, suggests that public safety requires a robust, national regulatory scheme that insists on licensing, registration, frequent and continuous training and proper storage.
Untraceable, unregulated plastic firearms are antithetical to the notion of a free society.
Alexandra Filindra is an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research encompasses American politics, immigration policy, social policy, gun control policy, and theories of citizenship.