Previous Post
Next Post

“It’s really a combination of a radar system and an AI-based computer system. It would have been unthinkable to make it just five years ago, because the computing power and hardware were just not there.” – Professor Nick Bowring in 3D Printed Guns Can’t Fly Under This Radar [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • So now all I will have to do is carry around a low power transmitter that transmits approximately the correct frequency range… sounds good to me 🙂

    • We all know that doesn’t matter.

      Silly 2A people, logic is for people who want children to suffer. /sarc

    • There was that photo of a guy on a train in the UK with a liberator. Bringing a weapon on board is technically a crime, so… I’m sure that no VIOLENT crimes have been committed with a 3D printed gun, though.

      It would take some SERIOUS balls to use a single-shot, Nerf-looking .22lr for ANYTHING other than fun.

  1. Wooo, security theater, now every airport will want one whether works or not! That inventor will be rich

  2. So it scans by shape and density, it seems. Presumably, then, it detects IEDs by the density of the material, since they can be shaped in any number of ways. What items have similar density? Clif bars? Toothpaste? Peanut butter? What about liquid explosives? And this is before we get to guns. Will it accurately detect the Bondhus? I see a lot of angry unarmed commuters in the future.

  3. This is great news for lofo voters who were hyperventilating over the impending doom of gun printing. “You hear that, gun nuts? Your nationwide terrorist assault on our airports is going to have to wait!” Expect similarly framed pieces in every msm outlet, including (and maybe especially) fox news.

  4. Pros: It’s less invasive than existing security measures and scanning devices which are currently in play. When used, it doesn’t have any greater negative affect on privacy.
    Cons: A potential for abuse as the subject may not know they are being scanned. On that same note, users of the device may more easily forget that this is still a physical intrusion.

    Either way, I have no problem with the use of this device so long as the subject has granted his or her explicit consent. Otherwise, it would be criminal to use this on someone, as the device makes physical contact with them through the microwave radiation it emits.

      • I agree that this device can be used in a violation of one’s rights – But only when it’s used non-consensually.

        There’s such a thing as consenting to be searched or scanned, such as when entering a sports arena and (arguably) when flying on commercial airlines. You make an agreement with the service providers that you’ll submit to a search in order to use their service. And in both cases you have other options: sports venues that don’t conduct searches or chartered planes.

        Thereby, I don’t see a problem with this scanning technology in-and-of itself, but rather in whether it is used in a non-consenting way. An example of that would be a police agency scanning members of the public, such as during a parade or other gathering in a public place. That would be a violation of our rights. Unfortunately, such behavior is being enabled through this technology.

  5. And highly trained professional screeners will still let warheads, nunchucks, AR’s, grenades, crates of ACME Explosives through.

    But your toothpaste will see you detained for 6 hours.

  6. Sooo…..if anyone wanted to smuggle a firearm someplace, they should design it such that its disassembled components resemble other things’ outlines?

  7. Figures that a Brit would use his labor to come up with such a travesty. QUICK! A free man might be harmed! Your majesty, we simply can’t have that!

  8. I’ve seen the next generation of this. In addition to the sensors, it incorporates a “kinetic countermeasure projector” that looks something like a plunger. It’s called a Dalek. I’m sure the government has our best interests at heart and nothing could go wrong with it . . .

  9. Imagine if you could detect cocaine and prescription drugs with radar. Such machines would be banned in the Capital City overnight.


  10. I wonder if they tested it on breast implants. I’m seeng a lot of false positives for hidden explosives…and a lot of very happy TSA agents

    • But wait, this could work to our advantage. Liberal population centers will be the first to distribute these, meaning they will have the highest exposure, thus limiting their rate of procreation…..

  11. Another solution to another problem that doesn’t exist. Just like when Cali banned the 50bmg because, ” you could shoot an airliner down”, never been a crime committed with one that I can find, and in regards to shooting down a plane, well, maybe when it’s still on the ground, but then again, not really shooting it “down”.

    Seems like politicians like to imagine really implausible things, and then make up laws, guess they have all the real problems sorted out already 😛

  12. I watched the video and it seems to take quite a bit of time to just scan one person. How in the world is this going to work in an airport situation where there are hundreds of people to scan for each flight? Oh yeah, instead of having to arrive 2 hours prior to departure, it will now be 24 hours. Yep, that will work out REAL GOOD.

  13. .so, if I am carrying a subcompact at 5 oclock in a leather IWB under a shirt and a coat and walking along at a brisk pace this machine is going to alert. Believe it when I see it. That gun he used as an example was enormous.

  14. Yes, but will it cook the Hot Pocket in my pocket? That could solve the problem of what to eat on my flight.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here