News
3D-printed guns, like the one allegedly used to kill a health care CEO, are a growing threat in the US and around the world
Nir Kshetri, University of North Carolina – Greensboro
Police investigating the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Dec. 4, 2024, have announced that the suspected assailant had used a 3D-printed gun. Several high-profile crimes in recent years have involved this kind of homemade, or partially homemade, weapon.
Often called “ghost guns” because they can be hard to trace, these firearms can be either partially or completely made with components that have been produced in metal or plastic on commercially available 3D printers. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of current federal restrictions on these firearms.
The first known criminal case involving a 3D-printed gun resulted in the arrest of a U.K. man in 2013. But since then, police worldwide have reported finding increasing numbers of these weapons.
My research focuses on the economic and social effects of advanced digital technologies, including 3D printing. I see that the use of 3D-printed guns in criminal and violent activities is likely to continue to increase. And it will likely prove ever harder for governments and police to regulate these firearms.
Surge in arrests and seizures
Arrests and seizures connected to 3D-printed guns are escalating quickly. Between 2017 and 2021, U.S. law enforcement agencies seized and reported nearly 38,000 suspected ghost guns, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 2021 alone, 19,273 suspected ghost guns were traced, a significant increase from 8,504 in 2020. The number of seized 3D-printed guns in New York state alone surged dramatically, from 100 in 2019 to 637 in 2022.
Arrests linked to 3D-printed guns are also rising. The world recorded 108 arrests in the first half of 2023, compared to 66 arrests in all 2022.
North America leads in 3D-printed gun-related arrests, with 166 cases from 2013 to June 2023. Europe followed with 48 arrests, while Oceania ranked third with 24 arrests.
The U.S. is a particular hot spot, with 36% of total global arrests related to 3D-printed firearms in 2023. But Canada is close behind, with 34%. The U.K. had 10%, and Australia had 8%.
Growing global security threat
Police and media reports indicate that many efforts to acquire or manufacture 3D-printed firearms were connected to plans for violent actions.
These guns have been used by diverse groups including far-right extremists, ethno-separatists, jihadists, left-wing anarchists, organized crime groups in Europe and pro-democracy rebels in Myanmar.
From 2019 to mid-2022, there were at least nine documented cases in Europe and Australia of extremists, terrorists or paramilitary groups either producing or attempting to produce firearms using 3D-printing technology. An analysis of 165 cases of 3D-printed firearms from 2013 to mid-2024 reveals that 15% were linked to terrorism. Far-right groups appear to be the most frequent users among terrorism-related cases.
A widely varied legal landscape
Often, 3D-printed guns are homemade firearms without serial numbers. This lack of identification makes them attractive to criminals because it is harder for law enforcement to link specific guns to particular crimes or suspects. Different countries take very different approaches to regulating these weapons.
Japan enforces stringent laws governing the manufacture, possession and sales of firearms. Its legal system strictly prohibits unauthorized firearm production, including 3D-printed guns. In 2014, a 28-year-old Japanese man was sentenced to two years in prison for producing plastic 3D-printed firearms.
In 2023, Canada effectively banned ghost guns. It is illegal to possess or manufacture them without a license from the government.
In Australia, making a 3D-printed firearm is illegal, and in some states, possessing a digital blueprint to create one is also an offense. In the state of New South Wales, a person convicted of possessing blueprints can face up to 14 years in prison. In Tasmania state, the punishment can be even more severe – up to 21 years in prison.
Across the European Union, making or owning homemade firearms, including 3D-printed ones, is broadly prohibited. However, laws and penalties vary, with some nations criminalizing even the possession of digital files or blueprints related to 3D-printing guns.
In the U.K., where firearms are very restricted, 3D-printed guns have been considered illegal. But in November 2022, the government updated the laws to specifically ban possessing, buying or producing parts for 3D-printed guns. The proposal aims to explicitly ban 3D-printed guns, addressing their unique challenges directly, rather than relying on existing laws designed for traditional firearms. The U.K. National Crime Agency has called for a ban on possessing blueprints as well, and Parliament is currently considering two bills proposing such a ban. https://www.youtube.com/embed/c1g-C7c-57U?wmode=transparent&start=0 An NBC News investigation describes how easy it is to build a ghost gun.
Federal rules in the US
The U.S. Constitution poses some unique challenges to regulating ghost guns, especially for the federal government, but also for states.
For regular firearms – that is, those not produced by 3D printing – U.S. federal law requires that a key component, called the lower receiver, bear a unique serial number. Purchasing a lower receiver requires a federal background check and conducting the transaction through a merchant who holds a Federal Firearms License.
The situation is more complicated when it comes to 3D printing weapons. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of expression, which includes sharing digital files that could contain firearm designs. And the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to bear arms.
In the U.S., selling 3D-printed firearms requires a federal license. But producing or owning homemade firearms for personal use is allowed. That includes 3D-printing the lower receiver component, and assembling the rest of the weapon with unregulated parts.
Current federal law, under review by the Supreme Court, also requires 3D-printed guns meet specific guidelines, even if they do not contain any currently regulated firearms components. Under the rule, makers of ghost gun kits must obtain a federal license, conduct background checks, record information about their customers and add serial numbers to their products.
The type of weapon also matters when determining the legality of a 3D-printed firearm. Automatic weapons, or machine guns, can continue to fire ammunition as long as the user holds the trigger down. These weapons have been heavily regulated by federal law for almost 90 years.
Criminals have used 3D printers to produce “Glock switches” or auto-sears, which convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machine guns. That turns those items into machine guns under federal law, making them illegal. Owning this kind of 3D-printed conversion device can lead to a maximum of 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.
In the states
The states can also regulate firearms, and many are trying to get control of 3D-printed guns.
By November 2024, 15 U.S. states had established regulations on ghost guns, though exact requirements vary. The rules typically require a serial number, background checks for firearm component purchases and reporting to authorities that a person is producing 3D-printed guns.
For instance, in New Jersey, a 2019 law mandates that all ghost guns have a serial number and be registered. Under current New York law, possession or distribution of a 3D-printed gun is classified as a misdemeanor. However, a proposed law seeks to elevate the manufacturing of firearms using 3D-printing technology to a felony offense.
As technology advances and rules evolve, criminals who use 3D-printed firearms will continue to pose threats to public safety and security, and governments will continue playing catch-up to effectively regulate these weapons.
Nir Kshetri, Professor of Management, University of North Carolina – Greensboro
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News
Woman Charged With Felony Animal Cruelty in Santa Ana Puppy Killing
Santa Ana Puppy Killing: Prosecutors have filed felony charges against a 75-year-old Anaheim woman accused of deliberately running over and killing her puppy, Blackey, in Santa Ana.
Last Updated on October 3, 2026 by Daily News Staff
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A 75-year-old Anaheim woman accused of deliberately running over and killing her puppy on a Santa Ana street has now been formally charged with felony animal cruelty, marking a major development in a case that drew widespread attention after surveillance video was released by police.
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office announced Friday, October 2, that Hanh Minh Nguyen, 75, of Anaheim, has been charged with one felony count of animal cruelty, one felony count of animal abuse by a caretaker, and a felony enhancement alleging the personal use of a weapon — a vehicle — to kill the animal.
Nguyen was arrested by Santa Ana police on Thursday, October 1, after investigators used automated license plate reader technology to identify the green Honda Odyssey seen in surveillance footage from the September 8 incident. Police subsequently located Nguyen and found the minivan at her Anaheim residence.
According to the District Attorney’s Office, Nguyen was released from custody after posting $20,000 bail. She is scheduled to appear at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana on November 2, 2026, in Department C55.
Surveillance video led to investigation
The case began on September 8 at approximately 9:15 a.m., when Santa Ana Animal Services officers responded to a report of a dead black-and-white male pit bull-mix puppy on West Park Lane.
Surveillance footage obtained during the investigation showed a woman removing the puppy from a minivan and placing food near the driver’s side of the vehicle. Authorities allege the woman then slowly drove forward as the puppy approached the food, running over the animal with the vehicle’s rear tire before leaving the scene.
The puppy, identified by authorities as Blackey, died.
The District Attorney’s Office describes Blackey as a 9-week-old puppy. Earlier statements and local news reports described him as approximately 9 months old.
Santa Ana police released surveillance footage of the incident on September 30 and appealed to the public for help identifying the driver.
Within a day, investigators said automated license plate reader technology helped them trace the Honda Odyssey to Nguyen. Police found the vehicle in her garage and took her into custody.
Police previously said Nguyen acknowledged owning and abandoning Blackey. According to the Los Angeles Times, a Santa Ana Police Department spokesperson said Nguyen told detectives she had left the puppy because he had been annoying her boyfriend by biting his shoes and belongings. Police said she acknowledged abandoning the dog but did not admit to intentionally running him over.
Prosecutors file felony charges
The filing of felony charges moves the case beyond the initial police investigation and into the Orange County court system.
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer condemned the alleged killing in announcing the charges and said his office intends to prosecute acts of violence against animals.
Deputy District Attorney Danica Drotman of the Orange County District Attorney’s Animal Cruelty Unit is prosecuting the case.
Nguyen is accused of the offenses and has not been convicted. The allegations against her will now be addressed through the court process.
Her next scheduled court appearance is November 2.
STM Daily News will continue following the case and provide updates as additional information becomes available.
Source and Related Links
- Orange County District Attorney — October 2 charging announcement
- The DA’s release is the strongest source for this update. It provides case number 26CF4923, the exact charges, $20,000 bail, November 2 court date and the prosecutor assigned to the case. Orange County District Attorney
- For corroborating coverage, CBS Los Angeles reports the arrest, use of automated license-plate readers and the subsequent felony charges. CBS News
- CBS Los Angeles — arrest and charges update
- NBC Los Angeles — felony charges update
College Life
Is College Worth It? New U.S. News Rankings Put More Weight on What Graduates Earn
Is college worth it? MIT has taken the No. 1 spot in the 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, ending Princeton’s 15-year run. But a new Earnings by Major metric could be even more important for families asking whether college is worth the investment.
For millions of students and families, choosing a college increasingly comes down to a basic question: Is college worth it?
The latest U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings are attempting to provide another piece of information to help answer that question.
The 2027 rankings place the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at No. 1 among National Universities, ending Princeton University’s 15-year run at the top. But perhaps the bigger story for prospective students isn’t which university occupies the No. 1 position.
It’s a significant change in how U.S. News measures the value of attending college.
For the first time, the rankings include an Earnings by Major factor designed to examine what graduates earn after leaving school — and to compare those earnings with graduates who studied the same subjects elsewhere.
Is College Worth It? U.S. News Looks Beyond Graduation
College has traditionally been promoted as an investment in a person’s future. But as families confront tuition, housing expenses and the possibility of student debt, simply earning a degree may no longer be enough information when deciding where — or whether — to attend.
Students increasingly want to know what happens after graduation.
The new U.S. News Earnings by Major metric examines graduate earnings four years after graduation using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard.
Importantly, the system doesn’t simply compare the average salary of graduates from one university with another.
Instead, earnings are compared within specific academic disciplines.
That distinction matters.
A university graduating large numbers of engineers, computer scientists or students entering other relatively high-paying occupations could otherwise appear to produce stronger financial outcomes simply because of the subjects its students choose to study.
Comparing graduates within similar fields is intended to provide a clearer picture of how graduates from different institutions fare financially.
From Student Debt to Graduate Earnings
The new Earnings by Major metric replaces the Graduate Indebtedness factor previously used by U.S. News.
That represents an important shift in perspective.
Instead of focusing primarily on how much debt students accumulate, the new measure looks at one aspect of what students may receive financially from their education after entering the workforce.
The metric examines employed federal financial aid recipients whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree.
According to U.S. News, the approach is intended to reduce the influence of family financial advantages and provide a better indication of the economic value institutions may contribute to graduates.
That doesn’t mean earnings alone determine whether a college education is worthwhile.
But for a student potentially investing tens of thousands of dollars — and several years of their life — knowing how graduates in a particular major perform economically can be an important part of the decision.
MIT Takes the No. 1 Spot
Against that changing methodology, MIT moved into the No. 1 position among National Universities in the 2027 rankings.
The top three are:
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Princeton University
- Harvard University
Princeton’s move to second place ends a run at No. 1 that began with the 2012 edition of the rankings.
Among National Liberal Arts Colleges, Williams College remained No. 1, followed by Amherst College at No. 2. Bowdoin College, Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College and Swarthmore College tied for third.
Nearly 1,700 institutions were evaluated in the 2027 edition.
Outcomes Are Becoming a Bigger Part of the Equation
The addition of graduate earnings is part of a broader emphasis on student outcomes in the U.S. News methodology.
U.S. News says outcomes now account for more than half of a school’s total score.
Institutions can be evaluated using as many as 17 weighted measures, including graduation and retention rates, social mobility for lower-income students, post-graduate earnings, faculty resources and academic peer assessments.
The shift reflects a changing conversation surrounding higher education.
For generations, students were often encouraged to focus heavily on getting into the most prestigious college possible. Today’s students may also be asking more practical questions:
How much will it cost?
How much financial aid will I receive?
How much debt might I have when I graduate?
What do graduates in my intended major earn?
And perhaps most importantly:
Will the investment pay off for me?
College Value Isn’t Just About Salary
Graduate earnings can provide useful information, but salary shouldn’t be treated as the sole measurement of the value of higher education.
Different careers have dramatically different compensation structures.
A graduate pursuing teaching, public service, social work, the arts or nonprofit work may earn less than someone entering engineering, finance or technology while still considering their education worthwhile.
There are also benefits of higher education that are difficult to capture in a salary statistic.
That’s why students comparing schools may want to look beyond an institution’s overall ranking and examine factors such as net price after financial aid, scholarships, graduation rates, student debt, internship opportunities, career placement, location and the strength of the program they actually intend to study.
The best-known university isn’t automatically the best financial or educational choice for every student.
Economic Diversity Also Gets Attention
The 2027 rankings also highlight economic diversity among highly ranked institutions.
According to U.S. News, MIT and Princeton rank third and fourth, respectively, among the top 25 National Universities in the percentage of students receiving federal Pell Grants.
Pell Grants generally assist undergraduate students with significant financial need and typically do not have to be repaid.
Among the top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, Amherst College ranked highest for economic diversity under the U.S. News measure.
A New Ranking Looks at In-State Value
U.S. News is also placing additional attention on affordability for students considering public universities.
The 2027 edition introduces a Best Value Schools for In-State Students ranking, which evaluates public universities based on academic quality and affordability for residents.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took the No. 1 position in the inaugural ranking.
That category could be particularly relevant to families deciding whether the prestige associated with attending a private or out-of-state university justifies potentially higher costs compared with attending a public institution in their home state.
The Rankings Look Different This Year
There is another important caveat when comparing the 2027 results with previous years.
Changes to the Carnegie Classification framework resulted in approximately 20% of previously ranked institutions moving into different U.S. News categories.
Because some colleges are now being compared against different groups of institutions, their 2027 rankings may not be directly comparable with previous years.
The changes also expanded eligibility, allowing additional institutions specializing in areas such as engineering, business and health to enter the rankings.
U.S. News also introduced an undergraduate economics specialty ranking while continuing rankings covering areas such as social mobility, innovation, historically Black colleges and universities, artificial intelligence programs, internships, undergraduate research and study-abroad opportunities.
Public Universities, HBCUs and Social Mobility
Among public National Universities, the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA tied for the No. 1 position, followed by the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor.
The top three Historically Black Colleges and Universities were:
- Spelman College
- Howard University
- Tuskegee University
For social mobility among National Universities, Florida International University and the University of California, Riverside tied for No. 1, with Oakland City University ranked third.
These categories illustrate another reason students may want to look deeper than a school’s overall national position. Different rankings can reveal institutions performing particularly well in areas that may matter more to an individual student.
So, Is College Worth It?
There isn’t one answer that applies to every student.
The cost of attending, financial aid, chosen major, career goals, likelihood of graduating and potential debt can dramatically change the financial equation.
A college with a famous name and high national ranking could be a poor financial choice for one student while a less prominent public university with generous financial aid could be an excellent investment for another.
That’s what makes the addition of Earnings by Major noteworthy.
Instead of asking only “Which college ranks highest?”, prospective students now have another reason to ask a much more personal question:
“What am I paying for — and what could I realistically get in return?”
MIT replacing Princeton at No. 1 makes the headline.
But for students and parents trying to decide whether college is worth the cost, the growing emphasis on outcomes, affordability and post-graduation earnings may ultimately be the more important story.
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 2027 Best Colleges rankings, released September 22, 2026.
U.S. News & World Report press release:
MIT Claims No. 1 Spot in U.S. News 2027 Best Colleges Rankings PR Newswire
Stay Informed with STM Daily News
From education and personal finance to technology, lifestyle, transportation and the stories shaping our everyday lives, STM Daily News keeps you informed about what matters — and why it matters. Get more news, useful insights and the latest updates by visiting STM Daily News and subscribe to stay connected to the stories worth knowing.
Forgotten Genius Fridays
Sarah Boone Improved the Ironing Board by Thinking About the Sleeve
Sarah Boone didn’t invent the first ironing board. The New Haven dressmaker patented a clever improvement shaped for pressing sleeves and fitted clothing.
Forgotten Genius | STM Daily News
Try ironing a sleeve on a wide, flat board. The fabric bunches, the seams curve, and pressing one side can leave a crease on the other. For dressmaker Sarah Boone, that everyday frustration presented a problem she could solve.
Working in New Haven, Connecticut, Boone designed an ironing board shaped for sleeves and fitted garments. Her board was narrow enough for a sleeve to slip over it, allowing one side to be pressed without flattening the other. Its curved edges followed the lines of a sleeve’s seams, while its supports helped position the board for different uses.
Boone filed her patent application in 1891. On April 26, 1892, she received U.S. Patent No. 473,653 for her improvement.
Boone did not invent the first ironing board. What she patented was a thoughtful redesign for a particular task. That distinction makes her achievement more interesting: she understood how the tool was used, recognized where it fell short, and changed its shape to make the work easier.
The patent drawing brings her idea to life. Instead of the broad surface most people picture when they hear “ironing board,” Boone’s design looks almost like the part of a garment it was meant to support. It is a practical solution from someone who knew the job firsthand.
That is the heart of Sarah Boone’s story. Invention does not always begin with an entirely new machine. Sometimes it begins when a person doing familiar work asks a better question: What would this tool look like if it truly fit the task?
Boone answered with a design—and secured a place in the history of Black innovation.
References:
Sarah Boone’s Original Ironing Board Patent — U.S. Patent No. 473,653, granted April 26, 1892. Includes her description, construction details, and original drawings.
USPTO: Beyond Baker’s List—Black Innovation Then and Now — Identifies Boone as a New Haven dressmaker who patented an improved ironing board shaped for bodices and sleeves.
USPTO: Found on Baker’s List — Background on Henry Baker’s work documenting Black patent holders, providing historical context for the Forgotten Genius series.
Explore more inventors and innovators in STM Daily News’ Forgotten Genius series.
Sources: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Boone’s original 1892 patent, available through Google Patents.
