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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Leo Porter, University of California, San Diego and Daniel Zingaro, University of Toronto

What do you think there are more of: professional computer programmers or computer users who do a little programming?

It’s the second group. There are millions of so-called end-user programmers. They’re not going into a career as a professional programmer or computer scientist. They’re going into business, teaching, law, or any number of professions – and they just need a little programming to be more efficient. The days of programmers being confined to software development companies are long gone.

If you’ve written formulas in Excel, filtered your email based on rules, modded a game, written a script in Photoshop, used R to analyze some data, or automated a repetitive work process, you’re an end-user programmer.

As educators who teach programming, we want to help students in fields other than computer science achieve their goals. But learning how to program well enough to write finished programs can be hard to accomplish in a single course because there is so much to learn about the programming language itself. Artificial intelligence can help.

Lost in the weeds

Learning the syntax of a programming language – for example, where to place colons and where indentation is required – takes a lot of time for many students. Spending time at the level of syntax is a waste for students who simply want to use coding to help solve problems rather than learn the skill of programming.

As a result, we feel our existing classes haven’t served these students well. Indeed, many students end up barely able to write small functions – short, discrete pieces of code – let alone write a full program that can help make their lives better.

Tools built on large language models such as GitHub Copilot may allow us to change these outcomes. These tools have already changed how professionals program, and we believe we can use them to help future end-user programmers write software that is meaningful to them.

These AIs almost always write syntactically correct code and can often write small functions based on prompts in plain English. Because students can use these tools to handle some of the lower-level details of programming, it frees them to focus on bigger-picture questions that are at the heart of writing software programs. Numerous universities now offer programming courses that use Copilot.

Advertisement

At the University of California, San Diego, we’ve created an introductory programming course primarily for those who are not computer science students that incorporates Copilot. In this course, students learn how to program with Copilot as their AI assistant, following the curriculum from our book. In our course, students learn high-level skills such as decomposing large tasks into smaller tasks, testing code to ensure its correctness, and reading and fixing buggy code.

Freed to solve problems

In this course, we’ve been giving students large, open-ended projects and couldn’t be happier with what they have created.

For example, in a project where students had to find and analyze online datasets, we had a neuroscience major create a data visualization tool that illustrated how age and other factors affected stroke risk. Or, for example, in another project, students were able to integrate their personal art into a collage, after applying filters that they had created using the programming language Python. These projects were well beyond the scope of what we could ask students to do before the advent of large language model AIs.

Given the rhetoric about how AI is ruining education by writing papers for students and doing their homework, you might be surprised to hear educators like us talking about its benefits. AI, like any other tool people have created, can be helpful in some circumstances and unhelpful in others.

In our introductory programming course with a majority of students who are not computer science majors, we see firsthand how AI can empower students in specific ways – and promises to expand the ranks of end-user programmers.

Leo Porter, Teaching Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego and Daniel Zingaro, Associate Professor of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Timothy J McCoy, Smithsonian Institution and Sara Russell, Natural History Museum

A bright fireball streaked across the sky above mountains, glaciers and spruce forest near the town of Revelstoke in British Columbia, Canada, on the evening of March 31, 1965. Fragments of this meteorite, discovered by beaver trappers, fell over a lake. A layer of ice saved them from the depths and allowed scientists a peek into the birth of the solar system.

Nearly 60 years later, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission returned from space with a sample of an asteroid named Bennu, similar to the one that rained rocks over Revelstoke. Our research team has published a chemical analysis of those samples, providing insight into how some of the ingredients for life may have first arrived on Earth.

Born in the years bracketing the Revelstoke meteorite’s fall, the two of us have spent our careers in the meteorite collections of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., and the Natural History Museum in London. We’ve dreamed of studying samples from a Revelstoke-like asteroid collected by a spacecraft.

Then, nearly two decades ago, we began turning those dreams into reality. We joined NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission team, which aimed to send a spacecraft to collect and return an asteroid sample to Earth. After those samples arrived on Sept. 24, 2023, we got to dive into a tale of rock, ice and water that hints at how life could have formed on Earth.

The CI chondrites and asteroid Bennu

To learn about an asteroid – a rocky or metallic object in orbit around the Sun – we started with a study of meteorites.

Asteroids like Bennu are rocky or metallic objects in orbit around the Sun. Meteorites are the pieces of asteroids and other natural extraterrestrial objects that survive the fiery plunge to the Earth’s surface.

We really wanted to study an asteroid similar to a set of meteorites called chondrites, whose components formed in a cloud of gas and dust at the dawn of the solar system billions of years ago.

The Revelstoke meteorite is in a group called CI chondrites. Laboratory-measured compositions of CI chondrites are essentially identical, minus hydrogen and helium, to the composition of elements carried by convection from the interior of the Sun and measured in the outermost layer of the Sun. Since their components formed billions of years ago, they’re like chemically unchanged time capsules for the early solar system.

Advertisement

So, geologists use the chemical compositions of CI chondrites as the ultimate reference standard for geochemistry. They can compare the compositions of everything from other chondrites to Earth rocks. Any differences from the CI chondrite composition would have happened through the same processes that formed asteroids and planets.

CI chondrites are rich in clay and formed when ice melted in an ancient asteroid, altering the rock. They are also rich in prebiotic organic molecules. Some of these types of molecules are the building blocks for life.

This combination of rock, water and organics is one reason OSIRIS-REx chose to sample the organic-rich asteroid Bennu, where water and organic compounds essential to the origin of life could be found.

Evaporites − the legacy of an ancient brine

Ever since the Bennu samples returned to Earth on Sept. 24, 2023, we and our colleagues on four continents have spent hundreds of hours studying them.

The instruments on the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft made observations of reflected light that revealed the most abundant minerals and organics when it was near asteroid Bennu. Our analyses in the laboratory found that the compositions of these samples lined up with those observations.

The samples are mostly water-rich clay, with sulfide, carbonate and iron oxide minerals. These are the same minerals found in CI chondrites like Revelstoke. The discovery of rare minerals within the Bennu samples, however, surprised both of us. Despite our decades of experience studying meteorites, we have never seen many of these minerals.

We found minerals dominated by sodium, including carbonates, sulfates, chlorides and fluorides, as well as potassium chloride and magnesium phosphate. These minerals don’t form just when water and rock react. They form when water evaporates.

Advertisement

We’ve never seen most of these sodium-rich minerals in meteorites, but they’re sometimes found in dried-up lake beds on Earth, like Searles Lake in California.

Bennu’s rocks formed 4.5 billion years ago on a larger parent asteroid. That asteroid was wet and muddy. Under the surface, pockets of water perhaps only a few feet across were evaporating, leaving the evaporite minerals we found in the sample. That same evaporation process also formed the ancient lake beds we’ve seen these minerals in on Earth.

Bennu’s parent asteroid likely broke apart 1 to 2 billion years ago, and some of the fragments came together to form the rubble pile we know as Bennu.

These minerals are also found on icy bodies in the outer solar system. Bright deposits on the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest body in the asteroid belt, contain sodium carbonate. The Cassini mission measured the same mineral in plumes on Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

We also learned that these minerals, formed when water evaporates, disappear when exposed to water once again – even with the tiny amount of water found in air. After studying some of the Bennu samples and their minerals, researchers stored the samples in air. That’s what we do with meteorites.

Unfortunately, we lost these minerals as moisture in the air on Earth caused them to dissolve. But that explains why we can’t find these minerals in meteorites that have been on Earth for decades to centuries.

Fortunately, most of the samples have been stored and transported in nitrogen, protected from traces of water in the air.

Advertisement

Until scientists were able to conduct a controlled sample return with a spacecraft and carefully curate and store the samples in nitrogen, we had never seen this set of minerals in a meteorite.

An unexpected discovery

Before returning the samples, the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft spent over two years making observations around Bennu. From that two years of work, researchers learned that the surface of the asteroid is covered in rocky boulders.

We could see that the asteroid is rich in carbon and water-bearing clays, and we saw veins of white carbonate a few feet long deposited by ancient liquid water. But what we couldn’t see from these observations were the rarer minerals.

We used an array of techniques to go through the returned sample one tiny grain at a time. These included CT scanning, electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction, each of which allowed us to look at the rock at a scale not possible on the asteroid.

Cooking up the ingredients for life

From the salts we identified, we could infer the composition of the briny water from which they formed and see how it changed over time, becoming more sodium-rich.

This briny water would have been an ideal place for new chemical reactions to take place and for organic molecules to form.

While our team characterized salts, our organic chemist colleagues were busy identifying the carbon-based molecules present in Bennu. They found unexpectedly high levels of ammonia, an essential building block of the amino acids that form proteins in living matter. They also found all five of the nucleobases that make up part of DNA and RNA.

Advertisement

Based on these results, we’d venture to guess that these briny pods of fluid would have been the perfect environments for increasingly complicated organic molecules to form, such as the kinds that make up life on Earth.

When asteroids like Bennu hit the young Earth, they could have provided a complete package of complex molecules and the ingredients essential to life, such as water, phosphate and ammonia. Together, these components could have seeded Earth’s initially barren landscape to produce a habitable world.

Without this early bombardment, perhaps when the pieces of the Revelstoke meteorite landed several billion years later, these fragments from outer space would not have arrived into a landscape punctuated with glaciers and trees.

Timothy J McCoy, Supervisory Research Geologist, Smithsonian Institution and Sara Russell, Professor of Planetary Sciences, Natural History Museum

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.