As if American gun laws weren’t convoluted enough, 3D printed firearms, also known as “ghost guns,” are making regulation policies even more complicated and difficult to enforce.
In a recent development, Defense Distributed, a controversial online organization dedicated to designing and proliferating downloadable and 3D printable ghost guns, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department to challenge the latter’s efforts to regulate 3D printed guns and limit how they are distributed.
The suit is seemingly a response to the government requesting that Texas-based Defence Distributed remove a number of files for 3D printable gun parts from its website. The latter is deemed illegal by the State Department under International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
In the United States, however, it is legal for citizens to create their own guns, providing they are for personal use only. On this basis, Defense Distributed believes it has not broken any laws and has not enabled Americans to break the law.
Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, has partnered with the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy group, to challenge the State Department’s decision as being in violation of its First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights.
While elsewhere in the world, 3D printed guns and firearms are a more or less black and white topic—people are not allowed to make or own unregistered guns, therefore untraceable 3D printed guns are illegal—within the U.S. the legality of 3D printed weapons is complicated by the ever-controversial Second Amendment.
Editor’s Note: The name of the writer of this article is Tess. I am going to assume if Tess is writing for 3ders.org, that Tess is well aware of 3D printing technology and a lot of the ways in which 3D printing opens up choice and empowers individuals and free associations. Yet, with all that knowledge (assumed on my part), Tess appears to side with the coercive enterprise when it comes to “allowing” or not “allowing” the most fundamental of individual and free association empowering “rights” that humans can have, to be able to equip themselves with effective tools for self-defense.
The language in this piece is not objective. The writer is not matter-of-factly reporting on this as a news item, but rather is imbuing the piece with the bias of the writer, who, it would seem to me (thought there may potentially be other explanations) is part of the gun grabber alliance, even as the writer is part of one of the most individual and free association market empowering technological sectors, 3D printing.
This article was chosen at least as much to show how an ostensible “neutral” article can be imbued with subtle bias as it was for the news it contained.
As one example, let’s start with the first sentence, “As if American gun laws weren’t convoluted enough, 3D printed firearms, also known as “ghost guns,” are making regulation policies even more complicated and difficult to enforce.”
The words used here are all negative. The writer is arguing, though not directly, that 3D printed guns are simply causing more problems for the coercive enterprise to enforce limiting individuals from equipping themselves with effective tools of self-defense. Go ahead and identify the negative words in the group and where they’re placed and you will figure out that, even in an ostensible straight news piece, the subtle bias is still there.
This is an important tactic to be aware of, because subtle bias has far more of an effect on the reader than does direct bias (such as you will find on iState.tv, which makes no effort to appear as if we’re simply a straight news reporting outlet). It behooves the discerning reader to train their minds to watch for these subtle bias tactics, lest they be influenced to think a certain way without ever having come to terms with why they actually have those thoughts. The subtle bias tactic relies on emotions far more than it does critical, logical thought, as can be demonstrated in this piece, which gives no real logical backing to their emotional word bombs they plant throughout this piece.