Advanced-Payment-358 t1_ivqe13u wrote
Reply to comment by modelvillager in 3D-printed weapons: Interpol and defense experts warn of ‘serious’ evolving threat by mossadnik
Banknotes have the property that they must be identical to 99.999% rate with no exceptions, so there is really no way to circumvent a single copy detection system. Also, banknotes are screened multiple times over the cycle of use with high resolution multi-feature scanners, so there's already two easy points to attack.
Meanwhile, guns do not share any specific shape or property that could define them as a "gun". There are countless devices that share similar features, cordless drills for example resemble pistol grips. Also, it would be easy to engineer the parts to pass these simple detection systems, or print them in two or more parts and fix them together.
Also, all programs and software should follow the universal code, which should be updated continuously. All it needs is one open source software, that essentially rips the source code of the market leader program, but with that crap detection property disabled, and it renders the whole thing ineffective.
modelvillager t1_ivqfcl4 wrote
I reckon you can define a gun for pattern recognition. It must have a mechanism to propel a firing pin for standard ammunition, and it must have a chamber to hold a round, of standard ammunition. It likely needs at least some form of barrel to contain the gas and enable acceleration.
And pattern recognition does not have be to software, you can hard code it into the device.
It doesn't need to be perfect, just a PITA to get around.
From a public policy perspective, this could be relatively easy. "3D printers that can be used to manufacture firearms are illegal." Engineers will quickly figure out the rest.
Advanced-Payment-358 t1_ivqihxk wrote
From that perspective, any machine or tool will have to be rendered obsolete, and frankly, that includes everything, starting from basic machine tooling to a blacksmith's hammer or a casting mold. This phenomenon is called "dual use", and if it gets too common, it just loses it's purpose. Also, restricting certain products will only cause market to figure out a method around it.
Pressure-bearing parts are not 3D printed, never, unless you've got a laser sintering machine at your disposal, which currently cost +100k and beyond, and the materials, planetary ball milled metallic powders, that ignite upon contact with atmospheric oxygen, cost $300/kg and above.
Also, there are countless items that share similar mechanisms. If you know gun mechanics, you know how universal shapes those are. For common people, you only need 1-2 seconds with a gun to disassemble it into two or more parts to make it unrecognizable as a firearm to most of them, and that's only with guns that look like guns.
This is not black and white scenario. This is a scenario with technology that supports other technologies. While making pressure bearing parts from metal is easy-ish with basic machine tooling, frames, receivers, grips, stocks and many secondary parts isn't - but then you can 3D print them. Now you have a gun that has all important - but simple - parts made out of high strength alloys, but all secondary parts 3D printed.
dnaH_notnA t1_ivs7wp9 wrote
This terms me you know nothing about CAD, 3d printing, or firearms.
The 3d printed part is not usually the pressure holding part, and is not distinguishable from, say, a custom nerf gun part or a whole host of other things you can’t even think up as an individual. There would either be so many false positives in a hypothetical AI gun detector that the software would be unusable, or it would do nothing.
SouthEasternGuy t1_ivsjolp wrote
There’s entire 3D printed model guns that do not function outside of being a novelty toy. You want to attempt to ban that as well?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments