The issue of 3-D printed guns is once again making news. This has naturally provoked a lot of talk and heat from the usual opposed corners of debate. The Trump administration dropped the government’s opposition to Defense Distributed file sharing the 3-D printer instructions for making firearms but a Federal judge has stepped in and made a fresh injunction halting the process.
Both side of the debate seem to focus on the firearm element of the issue. That’s to be expected, gun rights, just as is the case with abortion rights, is primarily an issue of culture, emotions, and tribalism. However I want to look at the underlying principals and what that could mean.
At issue is spreading knowledge and if the government can preemptively, for the public good, forbid the dissemination of knowledge.
When the Obama administration first forbid Defense Distributed from placing the files on the Internet they did it through a national security rationale. There are laws, and these laws are not bad ones in my opinion, that make the sharing of some technologies internationally illegal. Some knowledge must be kept from the hands of our adversaries; this applies to both classified and non-classified information. Now I think, and this is purely opinion, that the Obama administration used the as a justification but that preventing 3-D printer instructions for common firearms was a bit of a stretch. Defense Distributed challenged the government in court and the new administration ceased defending the Obama’s administration’s position.
The essential argument is that printer instructions for making firearms are too dangerous and therefore the government has a compelling interest in control the flow of such information.
Consider this what other information might be considered detrimental to the public good and therefore subject to the government’s prior restraint? How far are you willing to allow the government to go on this? Is it only firearms? Certainly other actor, if this action is allowed, will push the envelope and make all sorts of logical arguments as to why this or that must be restricted for the common good. Do not create a governmental power that you are not willing to hand over to your worst political opponent.
This is not an argument that unlimited anonymous guns are a good thing or even unavoidable but be careful about jumping on the first obvious remedy. You want to be sure it is medication and not a poison pill.