Today’s technological advances bring with them complex issues that are going to be challenges in dealing with them, perhaps more so than in any time in our history.
Such an issue is how to deal with today’s technology that makes it possible to produce a firearm using a 3-D printer.
A University of Texas graduate student who grew up in Arkansas is challenging the U.S. government to be allowed to distribute weapon-design files that enable citizens to make firearms on 3-D printers in their homes, according to an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Cody Wilson is battling for the right to distribute such files so that Americans wanting firearms can avoid federal and state gun-control restrictions such as permits and background checks.
A dozen states and four courts are challenging Wilson’s efforts to make getting a gun as easy as cranking one out on a home 3-D printer.
But the issue is more complex than that, or even the right-to-bear arms pro and con arguments.
Wilson, who built his first fully printed gun and published the blueprint files on defcad.com, an online community where users upload and download design, according to the article, is arguing stopping him would be a violation of his free speech protected under the First Amendment.
This occurs as memories and pain from mass shootings are still fresh in our minds and hearts.
Do we want to make it possible for firearms to be produced so easily? If that’s a no-brainer for some, saying too many loosely-hinged people already have access to deadly weapons, the First Amendment argument might be more complex.
Wilson is arguing he has the right to distribute information in his possession that he apparently has acquired legally. What if he had knowledge of how to produce weapons of mass destruction in our basements or kitchens?
Our gut instinct Is to say that Wilson’s objective, no matter how much he sees it as an American right, is simply too dangerous to society to be allowed.
But we know the complexity of the issue won’t allow it to be reduced to such a simple argument. It will be interesting how the courts deal with this technological challenge.